Central Bank secrets

ON TUESDAY, a high court judge admonished the Central Bank for not fully disclosing the salary and perks once enjoyed by ex-Central Bank governor Jwala Rambarran.

Justice Devindra Rampersad said the bank failed to supply information that would have been useful in calculating damages awarded pursuant to a lawsuit stemming from Mr Rambarran’s dismissal two days before Christmas in 2015.

“This court has a deep concern when it comes to an entity such as the Central Bank of TT, no less, which holds such a prominent position in the framework of the Republic of TT, failing to assist in a matter in which they have all of the information,” said the judge.

He noted the purpose of laws requiring the State to lay all its cards on the table in litigation is to protect citizens seeking relief under the law, not “to hide information that the State holds in trust for the citizens of TT.”

The bank, he said, “ought to have been more forthright and full and frank.”

At any other time, such a criticism of the Central Bank would be a cause for concern. But the judge’s comments are even more notable because they come at a time when there is heightened scrutiny over pay in the public sector and when people are being asked by fiscal policymakers to sacrifice more and more.

It is extraordinary that in these circumstances the State’s chief financial regulator has played coy when asked to state the salary and perks once enjoyed by its highest official.

The Central Bank is no sacred cow. Not only does the bank have a duty to assist any court of law that has made a serious finding against the State, it has a duty to acknowledge the public’s right to know fundamental issues relating to its operations.

When it comes to the pay enjoyed by high-ranking officials in this country, government officials and their lawyers like to claim there is a need to keep such information a tightly guarded secret. They say it is a matter of being competitive. They cite contract terms and security concerns.

They ignore who pays these officials. They ignore the nature of the functions they perform. And they ignore how the public perceives such secrecy within the context of a political culture that is loath to allow scrutiny.

Needless secrecy serves only one end: to damage trust in the very institutions meant to bolster it.

What is worse is that the very case before the judge featured reports of failures by government officials to lay bare materials relating to actions affecting the claimant.

If a breakdown of communication explains the breakdown in compliance here, it has nonetheless already damaged what the bank should really be trying to guard: its reputation.