Ombudsman must fair to all

 PRIME Minister Peter O’Neill could feel justified in complaining that the Ombudsman Commission might be practicing double standard in a number of allegations of misconduct sent to the watchdog to deal with.

The Ombudsman is not required by law to inform anyone about investigations it is conducting against com­plaints or allegations that they receive regarding leaders under investigations.

However, communication is a means of engaging proactively with those whose conduct the Ombudsman wat­ches over, and it is an effective way to allay any perception of bias or double standard against an organisation so often criticised for doing little to stem the tide of corruption in the country. The Ombudsman recently referred the Prime Minister to the Public Prosecutor over allegations of misconduct in office relating to the UBS loan and the sacking of former treasurer Don Polye.

It took less than six months for the Ombudsman to complete its investigations and make the referral to the Public Prosecutor. One would have thought the nature of the complaint, and the UBS transaction itself, would have required more time and resources to investigate, given that there are financial, investment and market issues requiring expert advice for the watchdog to consider.

On Sep 2, 2013, Registrar of Political Parties Dr Alphonse Gelu referred nine (9) Members of Parliament to the Ombudsman Commission for alleged misconduct in office.

These leaders, who include Opposition leader Bel­den Namah, allegedly breached the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates by failing to lodge their financial returns after the 2012 General Election.

One of the reasons why the law imposes a duty on MPs or parties to declare how much they spent, who has provided financial support and how much, is to remove the possibility of outside or hidden influence, and to allow as much as possible a level playing field for all.

It is now more than 12 months since the referral was made by Gelu but documents obtained by The National suggest the Ombudsman has done nothing about it to date. If the Ombudsman did, it has not communicated their action to Gelu or any other relevant person or institution. And this is leading them to question whether the watchdog is being fair in its dealings with complaints sent to them.

Namah’s referral for failing to lodge his returns is now compounded by the fact that a complaint has been laid against his claim that he spent K50 million on his candidates during the 2012 elections.

The Prime Minister has formally lodged a complaint for the Ombudsman to investigate this claim, and the watchdog must not take it lightly.

One of the three misconduct allegations the Prime Minister is facing regards a statement to the media he made relating to the sacking of Polye for causing instability in government.

The Ombudsman is alleging that the Prime Minister made a false and misleading statement over Polye’s sacking.

The Ombudsman must now apply the same standard, in dealing with public utterance by leaders, to Namah.

Did the Opposition leader tell the truth or was he lying about his election expenses?

Namah says the K50 million is his private money from his businesses. If this is indeed the case, the Internal Revenue Commission would have to be interested to know from which businesses he obtained those funds from, and whether there are tax obligations to consider.

As a parliamentarian, Na­mah is required to file annual returns with the Ombudsman stating his assets and liabilities. The Leadership Code requires him to declare gifts or considerations he receives, in cash or kind, for whatever purpose.

As the leader of a political party, he is required by law to lodge returns with the Registrar of Political Parties, stating how much he or his party received, and spent during the elections.

As it stands, Namah has not done so. He has paid a fine of K4240 and has been referred to the Ombudsman for prosecution. Yet, he now claims he spent K50m on himself and his candidates.

Namah must be held to account for his words, and actions, just as the Ombudsman has deemed that the Prime Minister must.