Editorial | Recall Greg Christie

When Karl Harrison says the cause of his resignation from the Integrity Commission, including its chairmanship, was for “confidential and personal” reasons, we interpret it to mean that he wasn’t driven by pique or peeve over the public’s not unreasonable critique of the performance of the commission during its 16 months of operation.

For, as a man of the law, the retired judge is no doubt aware of, and subscribes to, Lord Atkin’s oft-quoted dictum, in Ambard v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (1936), about justice. It was, he said, “not a cloistered virtue”.

“She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men,” Lord Atkin said. That observation, of course, isn’t limited to judges and their conduct in interpreting and executing the law. It obviously applies, also, to institutions managing the welfare of the State and those, like the Integrity Commission, charged, on behalf of the citizenry, with policing the behaviour of public officials so they don’t corruptly use their offices for private gain.

It is against this backdrop that it is urgent that the governor general, Sir Patrick Allen, not only appoint a new member of the Integrity Commission to fill the seat vacated by Justice Harrison, but a chairman of enterprising spirit, likely to be open to, and engaging of, the public, on the work on the commission and more liberal in the interpretation of the legislation upon which it rests. Indeed, our first choice, if Sir Patrick is so minded – which he is unlikely to be – would be for the recall of Greg Christie, the former contractor general who breathed life into, and gave a sense of mission to, that now-defunct institution.

At the same time, the legislature must immediately begin a review of the Integrity Commission Act to correct flaws in the legislation, starting with the one on which the political parties colluded during the initial debate of the law that muzzles the commission from speaking, in any fashion, about investigations it has undertaken, until probes are completed and reports tabled in Parliament.

All of this, though, doesn’t mean the work of the commission can’t, and shouldn’t, continue. Indeed, the recent development might be an opportunity for it to resume with renewed energy, a greater sense of purpose, and with a commitment to transparency.

The Integrity Commission encompasses the work of the old institution of similar name, which was the anti-corruption watchdog for parliamentarians, as well as the agency that did the same with regard to public servants above a specified pay grade. It also subsumed the role of the Office of the Contractor General that monitored the award and execution of government contracts against graft and kickbacks and to ensure fairness and efficiency.

Rocky ride

But the life of the new organisation, in its near year and a half of operation, has hardly been smooth. Worse, it has failed to win the confidence of the public.

From the start, the five-member commission has had a clearly uneasy relationship with its acting director of prosecutions, Dirk Harrison, the last contractor general, who joined the agency from his old organisation. There appeared to be philosophical differences between the commissioners and the robust Mr Harrison over approaches to anti-corruption oversight, which broke into the open in May when the commissioners, as part of their assumption of responsibility for the legacy agencies, declined to endorse both Mr Harrison’s draft and final reports on a controversial government contract. They argued that he reached conclusions that weren’t supported by the facts.

It is perhaps coincidental that Mr Harrison, who chafed at the fact that he never received his instrument of office – and that the commission hasn’t, since its inception, initiated any prosecution – decided to retire almost simultaneously with the resignation of his namesake. But the event adds to the sense of instability at the commission.

Further, the commissioners did themselves no favours by issuing a report on their first year’s work that, reviewers felt, was less than robust by failing to identify recalcitrant legislators, some of whom had unresolved reports from prior years.

Given the long notice that Justice Harrison gave for his resignation, Sir Patrick should, by now, have identified a successor who is committed to openness that Jamaicans expect. In the meantime, the remaining commissioners can begin an adjustment of attitudes.