The integrity of the Public Service in Antigua and Barbuda should uphold fairness, transparency, accountability and the proper administration of justice. One area that deserves greater scrutiny is the appointment, composition and functioning of investigative committees established to examine allegations of misconduct involving public officers.

There are growing concerns about possible malpractices in the investigative process, particularly where individuals appointed to serve on these committees may lack the necessary knowledge, competence, impartiality or understanding of their responsibilities.

An investigative committee is not a court of law, nor should its members assume the authority of the body responsible for making final disciplinary decisions.

The fundamental responsibility of an investigative committee is to conduct a fair, objective and thorough examination of allegations, gather relevant evidence, interview persons involved, establish the facts and submit its findings to the appropriate authority for consideration.

Committee members must understand the boundaries of their authority. Their responsibility is to investigate, not to intimidate, prejudge, persecute or personally determine the professional future of a public officer.

Another serious concern is the perception that some individuals may be appointed as chairpersons or members of investigative committees because of personal relationships, favoritism, professional connections or nepotism rather than their competence, experience and understanding of administrative procedures.

The appointment of a chairperson should never be treated as a reward for loyalty or personal association. It is a position that demands integrity, sound judgment, impartiality, confidentiality and a clear understanding of the principles of natural justice.

Being appointed as chairperson does not automatically mean that an individual possesses the knowledge, competence or authority to conduct a proper investigation.

A chairperson who does not understand the investigative process can compromise the entire exercise, potentially resulting in procedural unfairness, reputational damage, unnecessary conflict and questionable recommendations.

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: OPINION: Fairness, Accountability, Nepotism and Procedural Justice in the Public Service.