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