Toothless poodle or just the voice of conscience no one listens to anymore? That’s the question the society faces in dealing with the relevance of the Office of the Ombudsman now that the constitution provides for a Human Rights Commission and other legislative measures to address abuses by State officials.

Raphael Trotman, attorney and parliamentarian, is of the view that in a true democracy convention would dictate that a public official whom the Ombudsman has found to have acted incorrectly would correct the injustice caused by his action.

But he believes that the disregard for the Office of the Ombudsman mirrors the decline in regard for authority in the society as a whole. So that the challenge that faces the Human Rights Commission when it is established will be the readiness of the institutions of the State to comply with its decisions.

With regard to the Office of the Ombudsman, which he feels is still relevant even with the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, Trotman does not believe that legislation to strengthen his perceived authority is necessary.

It is a view that coincides with that of Victor Ayeni of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Ayeni believes that the perceived “toothless” condition is the strength of the Office of the Ombudsman if it can effectively mobilise public opinion in support of its work.

He believes that the lack of binding powers should force the holders of the Office to build networks and partnerships with their colleagues in the region and with the heads of the various government departments/agencies and actively campaign for good governance.

Ayeni’s views were extensively explored at a workshop last month in St Lucia which brought together representatives of the Caribbean media and officials from the offices of the Ombudsman of Barbados, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Trinidad and Tobago as well as the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner of St Lucia, the Public Defender’s Office of Jamaica, the Public Protector of South Africa and the Public Complaints Office of Nigeria.

The workshop was a collaborative effort of the Caribbean Association of Ombudsmen and the Commonwealth Secretariat. Also present were representatives from the Organisation of American States and the Foundation for Justice in the Dominican Republic, which is about to appoint an Ombudsman.

The workshop concluded that the activities of the Offices of the Ombudsman have to be more effectively projected into the public awareness and the holders of the office have to be more visible. However, an identified weakness is the failure of governments where the office exists in the Caribbean to properly equip it with the resources required to effectively investigate complaints and conduct research.

In contrast, the Public Protector’s Office in South Africa and the Public Complaints Office in Nigeria have a large qualified staff of investigators.

In every instance where an Office of the Ombudsman/Parliamentary Commissioner/Public Defender, as the office is variously known in the Caribbean, is established, it was to provide assistance to persons who believe that they have suffered injustices at the hands of public officers employed by government departments/agencies as a result of maladministration, that is where a government department makes a wrong decision, acts outside its statutory authority or fails to take required action.

Some examples of maladministration are unnecessary delays, bias, negligence, a failure to follow proper procedures, wrong decisions and improper service.

Also, the intention was that the Office would be free from political ties or government influence so that the holder of the office would treat with complaints objectively and find a resolution that is fair and unbiased.

Scant regard

A common refrain of the Caribbean Ombudsmen is the scant regard that is paid to their annual reports that are laid in parliament and hardly ever debated, even when egregious cases of maladministration force the Ombudsman to submit a special report.

In Guyana letters by the Ombudsman to a former Commissioner of Police drawing to his attention that he had dismissed a police rank without giving him the benefit of a hearing as required by the law failed to elicit a response from the Commissioner or a reaction from the parliament even when it was made the subject of a special report.

In contrast, during an earlier administration a government minister opted to resign because the Ombudsman had found that he had acted incorrectly in a matter involving a ministerial colleague.

One weakness identified that was common to the institution is a lack of public awareness of its functions. Ayeni told the workshop that a good public profile is essential as ignorance of the institution’s role undermines its effectiveness.

He believes too that the Ombudsman whom he describes as the Auditor General of the Public Service provides the government official with the opportunity to be heard, and perhaps commended by an unbiased, respected public figure.

An observation not fully explored is the tendency of governments in the Caribbean to appoint persons near to retirement or retired to these offices, thereby effectively ensuring that “the voice of conscience” is at best meek if not stifled. One-term Ombudsmen, as in Barbados, are those who make waves. Those contented to file reports and occasionally vent their frustration in the media enjoyed several terms. The pattern seems to be broken in Jamaica, where the name of the office was changed to allow it take on the function of championing constitutional cases where the rights of the individual has been breached.