If you really want to judge the character of a man, look not at his great performance. Every fool may become a hero at one time or another. Watch a man do the most common actions; those are indeed the things which will tell you the real character of a great man. Great occasions rouse even the lowest of human beings to some kind of greatness, but he alone is really the great man whose character is great always, the same wherever he be.
Swami Vivekananda
In our article of 5 July 2026, we referred to the need for several watchdog agencies to get their act together to ensure that they comply fully with the provisions of the Constitution and/or legislative provisions applicable to them, to do their utmost to protect the public interest without fear or favour, and to make a meaningful contribution to the affairs of the State. We spoke of the requirement for Guyana’s Integrity Commission to go beyond monitoring the submission of annual declarations of assets and liabilities of Ministers of the Government, parliamentarians and other senior public officials. It is not enough for the Commission to publish the names of persons who have failed to submit their financial returns. It needs to critically examine the declarations to ascertain the extent of their completeness and accuracy as well as any mismatch in observable lifestyles vis-à-vis the declarations. Where there are violations of the Integrity Commission Act and the related Code of Conduct, the defaulters should be prosecuted.
The Jamaican Integrity Commission recently published a summary of the Prime Minister’s assets and liabilities for 2024. In the same year, the Commission published a report where it was alleged that the Prime Minister failed to declare certain bank accounts held in his name. Similarly, the Trinidad and Tobago Integrity Commission investigated former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday for his failure to declare a bank account held in London in he and his wife’s names. He was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to two years jail and a fine of TT$20,000.
In the light of news reports of the President’s ownership of a mega-farm on the Linden/Soesdyke Highway on lands leased from the State and the widespread concerns and criticisms that followed, the President was quick to point out that he had borrowed funds from the banking system to finance his investment and that he had declared to the Integrity Commission all his assets and liabilities.
On several occasions, we had cause to refer to the checkered history of the Commission and its lack of effectiveness in seeking to secure the integrity of persons in public life, as envisaged by the Act. Last week, former Speaker of the National Assembly Mr. Ralph Ramkarran weighed in on the subject, asserting that the Commission: (i) remains incapable of providing meaningful public accountability because asset declarations filed by public officials remain secret; and (ii) lacks investigative and prosecutorial powers. He pointed to several countries, including Germany, South Africa and the United States, where financial declarations by senior public officials are accessible to the public. Mr. Ramkarran argued that anti-corruption, anti-bribery, transparency and ethics legislation are very much required in Guyana, considering that the country is now a major oil producing country where opportunities to indulge in corrupt behaviour are significantly greater, especially given the scale of public expenditure over the last five years or so. Against this backdrop, one must note that 58 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, with 32 percent in extreme poverty, according to the Inter-American Development 2024-2025 report. It should not be over-emphasized that corruption benefits the rich and powerful, and politically well-connected, at the expense of the poor, vulnerable and disadvantageous groups in a country.
In his inaugural address on 7 September 2025, the President promised during his term of office to, among others, strengthen anti-corruption efforts by establishing a dedicated anti-corruption unit and holding public officials to the highest standards of integrity, including the requirement for officials to account for their personal assets. Ten months on, there is no evidence of any efforts being made to honour this promise.
In today’s article, we revisit the provisions of the Integrity Commission Act of 1997 that is aimed at securing the integrity of persons in public life, identify shortcomings and make appropriate recommendations to ensure its effectiveness as well as the achievement of its desired impact.
Some background information
The Integrity Commission Act was passed in the Assembly on 21 July 1997 and assented to by the then President Samuel Hinds on 24 September 1997. The former took place three months after the death of the then President Cheddi Jagan, and there is no doubt that he would have been instrumental in the passing of the legislation at a time when corruption in government began to emerge. It was also the same year that the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) came into being, with Guyana being one of the signatories. Guyana also acceded to IACAC in March 2001 as well as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in April 2008. A key provision of these two conventions relates to having a system in place for the declaration of income, assets and liabilities of persons who perform public functions in certain posts and, where appropriate, for making such declarations public.
The 1997 Act repealed the earlier legislation of 1991 that was passed under the Hoyte Administration. It is not clear if the latter was made operational, and if so, why the members of the Commission were not appointed during the six-year period prior to 1997. Additionally, following the passing of the Act, it took another two years for the three-member Commission to be appointed exclusively from the religious community. Arguably, they would have lacked the technical competence and expertise to scrutinise the annual declarations, raising questions as to the seriousness of any effort to combat corruption in government.
Subsequent appointments of the members of the Commission were made without consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, resulting in a court action and the subsequent resignation of the chairperson the late Bishop Randolph George in 2006. As a result, no meetings of the Commission could have been held because of the absence of a quorum. Section 9(4) of the Act provides for three members of the Commission to constitute a quorum which means that all the members had to be present for a meeting to be held.
It is not clear what was the outcome of the court case, but it not until 2018 that new members were appointed under the David Granger Administration. That Commission’s life came to an end on 21 February 2021, and the following five members were appointed on 1 June 2022: Chandra Gajraj (Chairperson), Hardesh Tewari, Kim-Kyte Thomas, Mohamed Haniff and Wayne Bowman for a three-year term. Mrs. Gajraj is the wife of the former Minister of Home Affairs under the PPP/C Administration, the late Ronald Gajraj. In June 2025, except for Ms. Kim-Kyte Thomas, members of the Commission were re-appointed for an additional three-year term. It is important to note that the Commission is required to be independent and to administer its functions fairly.
Considering the above, the Commission was without the services of its members for a total of 15 years since the passing of the Act in 1997, again raising questions about the seriousness of any effort to combat corruption in government. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the establishment of Commission and the way it functioned over the years do not provide any source of comfort and are a mere cosmetic exercise to give the impression that Guyana has a system in place to combat corruption in compliance with the two conventions referred to above. Some years ago, as a representative of Transparency Institute Guyana Inc., I participated in one of the meetings of the Organisation of American States to review Guyana’s compliance with the provisions of IACAC. I witnessed firsthand the extent to which the Authorities went in selecting participants to testify so a favourable impression could be given of Guyana’s efforts to combat corruption!
Appointment and tenure of office of members of the Commission
The Commission consists of a chairperson and not less than two or more than four other members. The chairperson must be a person who is or who was, or who is qualified to be, appointed as, a Puisne Judge of the High Court or any other fit and proper person. The other members are appointed from among persons appearing to the President to be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, law, administration of justice, public administration, social service, finance or accountancy or any other discipline.
The members of the Commission are appointed by the President after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition for a period not less than one year and are eligible for re-appointment on the expiry of their term of office. They serve either on a full-time or part-time basis, and their emoluments and other terms and conditions of their appointment are to be determined by the President after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It is, however, not clear whether such consultations took place, what are the terms and conditions of appointment, and whether the members are performing their duties on a full-time basis.
Functions of the Commission
The Act does not specify what are the functions of the Commission, except to state it is required to perform the functions conferred on it by this Act.
Financial disclosure
Every person in public life is required to file with the Commission a declaration on or before 30 June of each year, giving ‘full, true and complete’ particulars of the assets and liabilities as of the end of the previous year and well as the income for that year, including those of his/her spouse and children. The Commission is required to examine all declarations and related documents and make such enquiries as it considers necessary in order to verify or determine their accuracy. For this purpose, it may request a declarant to furnish in writing such further particulars relating to his/her financial affairs as may be considered necessary, and the declarant must comply with the request within the time specified by the Commission. Where a person fails to file a declaration or to furnish particulars requested, the Commission must publish the fact in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper.
Offences and penalties
Any person who; (i) fails, without reasonable cause, to file with the Commission a declaration, or (ii) knowingly files a declaration that is not complete or is false in any material way; or (iii) fails, without reasonable cause, to comply with a request made by the Commission for additional information within the specified time; or (iv) gives incomplete or false information pursuant to the request; or (v) fails, without reasonable cause, to attend an inquiry being conducted, or to furnish any information the tribunal may request or knowingly gives any false or incomplete information in such inquiry, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of G$25,000 and to imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year. Where the offence involves the non-disclosure of property, the magistrate convicting the person must order the person to make full disclosure of the property within a given time. Failure to comply with the order of the magistrate within the given time, the said offence shall be deemed to be a continuing offence, and the person shall be liable to a further fine of G$10,000 for each day on which the offence continues.
No prosecution for an offence is to be instituted without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or after five years from the date when the person is alleged to commit the offence, the person ceased to be a person in public life.
To be continued
Discussion