requesting information must first prove that he or she has a direct link to the information requested. The condition was added to the original law by executive decree in May 2002 and is considered the main obstacle to implementation of the transparency law. After the May 2004 elections the supreme court ruled that the section of the decree relating to access to public information was illegal. At this writing the reform of the law had not been passed. • A draft law submitted in December 2003 aims to expand a law on the transparency of public procurement processes by disclosing the owners or shareholders of companies that do business with the state. Under the bill shareholders of companies that win state contracts would have to certify ownership of their shares and pass this information to the public prosecutor’s office or to the auditor general. At this writing the reform of the law had not been passed.
Corruption takes centre stage in the third general elections Martín Torrijos was elected president in May 2004 on a platform of zero tolerance for corruption, in an election that was widely praised for its transparency and fairness. As in the elections in 1994 and 1999, voter turnout was high at 77 per cent and both Panamanians and the international community generally regarded them as honest. This was in sharp contrast to the 1989 elections, which were annulled because of electoral fraud. The winning candidate was announced four hours after voting centres closed and his three rivals acknowledged defeat a few moments later. President Torrijos ran for Patria Nueva, a coalition of the Partido Revolucionario Democrático and the Partido Popular. His election platform featured 16 anti-corruption promises, including pledges to create a National Council of Transparency and the Fight against Corruption; to implement a professional civil service career structure; and to submit a salary bill to the legislative assembly. The pledges read well in principle, but the experience of his predecessor in office, Mireya Moscoso, contains a cautionary tale. Her plan of action also included measures to fight corruption and the fact that they were never carried to fruition generated disappointment among the public. All four candidates in the 2004 presidential election placed corruption high on their
agendas. In December 2003, TI Panama sent them a ‘minimum agenda to fight corruption’ and each responded by adopting around half of the 13 proposed actions. President Torrijos now has a majority in the legislative assembly and therefore little excuse not to push through the legislative changes called for under his anti-corruption agenda. Other actions may require more than political will, however. Anti-corruption institutions need to be strengthened and consideration should be given to the creation of a body charged with the prevention of corruption, such as a public ethics office, an anti-corruption office or a prosecutor general specialised in corruption. Whistleblower protection also needs to be introduced – at present the Panama Canal Authority is the only public institution in Panama that provides full protection for whistleblowers, making investigations easier to carry out. Another challenge is to strengthen the widely discredited supreme court and attorney general’s office. In order to do so, a proper career structure needs to be created, with nominations based on merit so that judges do not act in the interests of the government that selected them. A deep reform of electoral law is also required. The electoral court is expected to set up a commission in 2005 to evaluate changes to the electoral code. One proposal is to call for a second round of voting if the
Country reports PANAMA
GC2005 02 chap06 187
187
13/1/05 4:34:21 pm