On the basis of the Privy Council ruling that the constitutional rights of the Maha Sabha had been violated, the High Court recently made an order assessing damages to the Hindu organisation. In making the award of almost $3 million the learned judge is reported to have observed that it was a case of unexplained and unjustifiable discrimination in refusing Maha Sabha a radio licence, the issuance of which is supposedly a relatively simple exercise in any free and open society. Surely the Maha Sabha, like all the then-licence holders, must have been able to meet all the licence requirements, especially given the size of its targeted base.

Here, once again, we have an instance where the public is to bear the cost of unexplained and unacceptable decisions by the executive branch, in this case a breach of fundamental constitutional rights that ministers openly swear to uphold.

In this particular case the Privy Council also observed that Government had deliberately misled the High Court. We cannot accept this as a mere lapse of procedures such as failing to gazette the appointment of the Commission of Enquiry into the construction industry. It had all the marks of a deliberate attempt to deny a group of citizens their constitutional rights while favouring one of the ruling party’s supporters.

But must this compensation award really be the end of the matter? Section 24, Part IV of the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, is part of the Code of Conduct applicable to all persons in public life and exercising public functions. It states without ambiguity that those persons (a) be fair and impartial in exercising their public duty, and (b) afford no undue preferential treatment to any group or individual. Some three years ago after the Privy Council ruling on the matter formal complaints were made to the Integrity Commission, then headed by John Martin, about a breach of this section of the act.

Most citizens will interpret the Privy Council ruling as finding that the person or persons making the adverse decision had acted unfairly toward the Maha Sabha and gave preferential treatment to Citadel Ltd. Can there really be any other conclusion but that there was a gross breach of the Code of Conduct?

Section 31 of the same Code of Conduct makes it mandatory for the Integrity Commission to report any breach to the appropriate House of Parliament etc, in this case both the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, given that Cabinet is collectively responsible for the decision. It is now some three years since the formal complaints were made. President Richards, you have a solemn duty to see that this breach of law does not continue to fester. Appoint the Integrity Commission.