On Public Interest: What the “Commissions” Reveal.

“For our leaders their feelings are a matter of their conscience but our
responsibility to the country, to ourselves and to God demands that we
point out to them the path to which they had made us stray and the course
from which we can ill afford to depart. They need not be reminded that our
lives - the teeming mass of Gambians - are directly affected by their
actions and the decisions they make.” (Editorial, October1, 2004, The
Independent)
For the past several months, I have scoured through the depositions of
current and former public officials in a circus of a commission dubbed “The
Paul Commission” and its cousin “GAMTEL’s $3M.” In agreement with many
observers, however worthless these exercises may prove to be, one thing
that is sure to be formally ascertained is what many of us had known all
these years – that what we have for a government today is a huge sham!
A lesson to be learnt from what has been revealed through these commissions
so far, is that if ethics in government is about the application of moral
standards in the course of public duty, then these commissions seem to be
unveiling enormous amounts of unethical behavior within the A(F)PRC
government over the past ten years. From the depositions given so far, one
will not fail to notice the abundance of lies, deception, disingenuity,
political self-interest, personal ambition and political support for a
repugnant regime. The behavior of secretaries of state and other officials
which is contrary to many of the most important facets of conventional
morality is clearly laid out in the open for all to see.
However, we must be mindful of such appearances, they can be deceptive.
Quite frankly, it may be simply too glib to put a gloss on the activities
of secretaries of state and other officials in the various departments over
the past ten years and in relation to matters of public policy as complex
as those concerning the handling of the affairs of the state. Perhaps I
should revisit the above definition of ethics to refine it so that it is
not simply about the application of moral standards in the course of public
or official work, but about the application of those standards in relation
to the performance of duty to the nation and society.
Few would disagree that the highest standard of duty of any democratic
government must be set to protect and promote the public interest. We may
disagree, however, about what the public interest is, and about how it is
to be determined and by whom. The main culprit is perhaps the complexity of
government, for the problems that may arise in determining the moral and
ethical standards, the diversity of participants in government, and the
enormous pressures brought to bear on government, both from within and from
outside. These problems arise because not only is government complex, it is
made up of individuals who have their own ideas about what is right and
wrong, about their duty in relation to official work, and ultimately about
what the public interest is. Personal agendas not withstanding. Moreover,
these individuals, even at the exalted levels of President of the Republic,
Secretary of State or Permanent Secretary, for example, are primarily
concerned with their own aspects of public policy. They suffer from a
tunnel vision, blinded to other aspects of public business by the necessity
of concentrating on their own greed, selfish and in some cases clandestine
activity.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there is both an overall public
interest - which it is the duty of government as a whole to protect and
promote - and a public interest as perceived by individuals. In other
words, public interest should not be perceived in rigid terms as if it were
something concrete and comprehensible, against which all activities can be
judged, but similarly in terms of the public interest in different
circumstances, for different individuals and in relation to decisions made.
Where do these commissions stand in that regard? What is the commission’s
definition of public interest?
If nothing else, these public commissions will reveal that, certain
individuals have radically different views of the world in relation to the
execution of their fiduciary duties to the public. This is clearly
manifested in how these officials respond to the commissioners’ questions
that are directly or indirectly relating to the use of official clout for
personal gain. Take for instance the following report on the former NIA
director’s deposition:
“Kujabi denied acknowledgement of a building and construction company whose
name he had just heard for the first time. However, shown a project
document, he admitted that a signature on it was his own but was quick to
add that the company never took off since it was incorporated.”
It must be noted that the obligation of these officials to be forthcoming
with information in relation to the commissions’ questions about their
activities while in office lies at the heart of the important
constitutional principle of public accountability. The public interest, in
a full discharge of this obligation, should be a constant heavy weight in
the balance. Throughout the period that these commissions have been going
on, there is to be found a consistent undervaluing, by the majority of both
current and former government officials, of the public interest.
Taken at face value, the responses we have seen by most of these officials
so far, reveals that certain officials under review have behaved in ways
that are outright unethical or even immoral by the standards of
conventional ethics and morality. In particular, and to put it mildly, they
made misleading statements to these commissions and the public about the
true nature of their activities under public duty. At the very least,
the “Paul Commission’s” report, if it were to be unbiased, shall be replete
with examples of public officials misleading the people of The Gambia and
of them consistently failing to meet the requirements of public
accountability. Of this, we have been aware but sometimes it helps to
formalize common knowledge.
These commissions have also help make it quite clear, perhaps
unintentionally, that there is a higher public interest than the particular
concerns of certain individuals or groups. It is a public interest which is
derived from true democracy. For democracy to work, public officials must
be held accountable. For them to be held accountable they are under an
obligation to disclose as full information as possible about their
activities.
Moreover, instead of espousing and being socialized into a world in which
the concepts of public duty are paramount, our officials have imbued the
civil service into a world where personal ambition is exalted above all
else. In such a world it can not be a surprise that they will behave in
ways by which personal objectives are put above all else. They will not
question the actions of others because it is not in their interests to do
so. Even where there is no consciousness of this attitude on their part,
which is how they behave because it is the acceptable way of behaving. In
other words, these commissions are proving to us that we have a network of
scam artists running our government.
By: Abdoulie A. Jallow (BambaLaye)
October 4, 2004

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~