Chief Ombudsman must explain

 A QUESTION that had been asked some time back comes to mind again with the latest referral of parliamentarians by the Ombudsman Commission to the Public Prosecutor.

And that is, “Who watches the watchdog?”

Reactions by Cabinet ministers Ben Micah and Sir Puka Temu on their referrals this week are nothing new as others before them have done similarly to justify themselves, except that the watchdog itself could be called into question because of a statement alluded to Chief Ombudsman Rigo Lua. 

What the Ombudsman Commission has achieved so far is commendable but it has apparently subjected itself to questioning by some of these referred leaders and the public at large.

At least two very senior politicians have vehemently objected to their referrals by the Ombudsman Commission.

Lua and his staff have obviously been hard at work given the number of referrals in the past 12 months or so. From the number of referrals so far, this Parliament is set to go down on record as having the most MPs brought before the Leadership Tribunal.  

The referred parliamentarians include Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and Ministers Boka Kondra (Tourism, Arts and Culture), Francis Awesa (Works and Imp­le­mentation), Ben Micah (Public Enterprises and  State Investments) and Sir Puka Temu (Public Service). It is a commendable job by the watchdog who is acting on credible complaints filed by members of the public.  

Having satisfied itself with the documentation be­fore it, the Ombudsman Commission then refers the subjects of the complaints to the Public Prosecutor to request the Chief Justice to appoint leadership tribunals to examine the facts and questions leaders.

Micah and Sir Puka have vehemently challenged their referrals.  

Micah denies any impro­priety regarding the K3000-plus a day rental of a downtown Port Moresby hotel suite as an office and residence. He argues that he was entitled to office accommodation and it was his department’s responsibility to rent and its prerogative to decide on how to pay.

Aside from Micah’s claim of “best performing minister”, which is of course debatable, he has graciously accepted the referral.

Sir Puka, on the other hand, has “strenuously denied” both grounds for his referral by the Ombudsman Commission to the Public Prosecutor.

His arguments have been given wide publicity by way of full-page advertisements in the daily newspapers this week.

Sir Puka claims that Lua told him: “We are under pressure from the people … the people are asking what we are doing with this leader and that leader.”

If the above admission alluded to the Chief Ombudsman is true then that is a matter of grave concern.

The day the Ombudsman Commission succumbs to pressure from the people and performs its duty because somebody wants it done, it ceases to be the impartial watchdog it is constitutionally empowered to be.

This is not the first time the body charged with implementing the Leadership Code has come under the scrutiny of leaders. Others have questioned the watchdog’s role in the past.

We agree that the Ombudsman Commission is supposed to be an independent body not subject to direction, control or undue influence.  And it must make decisions to refer leaders only on merit and not as a result of pressure by anyone. Hopefully, “the people” referred to by the Chief Ombudsman are not merely political opponents out on a witch-hunt or are driven by personal interests, rather than a conscientious effort to make leaders accountable and perform better. 

The Ombudsman Commission, as the watch dog of the Leadership Code, must be vigilant against abuse of power and privilege or misconduct by politicians and public officials. It is at the same time expected to guard its own integrity and to never allow it to be questioned.

Therefore, it would be in public interest for the Chief Ombudsman to issue a media statement to confirm or deny the comments alluded to him by the Sir Puka.

That will put the matter to rest while the Public Prosecutor deliberates over Sir Puka’s referral.