Neither of the two pieces of legislation relevant to Central Bank Governor Jwala Rambarran’s controversial forex revelations, mandates absolute confidentiality, says public interest lobbyist group Disclosure Today (DT).
“The legislation recognises disclosure of information in pursuit of the performance of the objects of the Central Bank is permissible...the Governor’s decision to disclose was within the remit of his statutory mandate and also consistent with the evolving recognition of the public’s right to know on all matters of public interest.
“To chastise a public official who discloses information to the public in such circumstances would be a regressive step for T&T to take,” DT added.
DT, headed by Rishi Maharaj, with legal adviser attorney Justin Phelps, describes itself as being committed to advancing transparency on public interest matters.
The group yesterday examined the relevant Central Bank and Financial Institutions Acts involved in the issue concerning Rambarran who is at an impasse with Government on various matters, including his recent disclosure of T&T’s largest forex users.
This has angered the business community which claimed he breached confidentiality.
Last week’s Cabinet meeting reportedly sought advice on whether Rambarran’s revelations constitute “misconduct in relation to his duties” and if the President had discretion to reject a Cabinet directive on a Central Bank governor’s termination.
Cabinet was advised the President follows the Government’s instructions. Prime Minister Keith Rowley later slammed Rambarran’s actions.
Communication Minister Maxie Cuffie was asked at yesterday’s post-Cabinet media briefing if there was any decision or development on Rambarran.
He said there was no decision in relation to the Central Bank Governor and the Finance Minister (who’s dealing with the issue).
The minister, who was out of office since last weekend, returned yesterday.
DT said Rambarran’s actions engaged the secrecy provisions in Section 8 of the Financial Institutions Act 2008 and section 56 of the Central Bank Act, Chap 79:02.
“However, it is important to note that neither section mandates absolute confidentiality.
“By section 8(6) the Central Bank is allowed to make public disclosure by any means considered appropriate by the bank where such disclosure would be in the best interests of: (a) T&T’s financial system, or (b) the depositors, other customers, creditors or shareholders of such licencee,”
“Section 56 provides that the preservation of secrecy is subject to what is necessary for the due performance of its objects,” DT added.
Noting the simmering forex shortage issue for over a year, DT stated: “Educating the public, in particular the business community, on reasons for shortage and the nature of the uses of the forex could serve to alleviate concern and bring greater awareness of the critical linkage between consumer demand and foreign reserve depletion.
“Transparency is the lifeblood of public sector accountability.
While we recognise the right to commercial confidentiality, these rights must be balanced with the mandate for transparency in public sector decision- making... across the Commonwealth, the public interest in the public’s right to know is circumscribed by a range of potential exemptions which can be invoked to defeat that right.
“Such exemptions include the area of commercial confidentiality but this in itself is expressly subject to a public interest override in favour of disclosure which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”
DT added: “As corruption has become more sophisticated and endemic, the historical sanctity of commercial confidentiality has been rightly eroded to meet the demands of societies to reduce corrupt practice.
“Commercial confidentiality has never provided an absolute exemption to disclosure. Any presumption against disclosure is increasingly no longer recognised. Rather, the case has to be convincingly made as to why confidentiality should be protected and the public left in the dark.”
DT said the vast majority of forex available to the business community by the Central Bank came from public resources, “therefore, the case for the public having a right to know about the allocation of these scarce resources is a strong one which trumps the interest in confidentiality of the companies concerned.”