Editorial | Time for Justice Panton to speak

It‘s been nearly a month since Seymour Panton’s elevation to the chairmanship of the Integrity Commission and almost three since he was likely to have been reasonably certain of getting the job. He was, as required by law, one of two formers judges who sat on the commission, one of whom has to be chairman. Therefore, when Karl Harrison advised the governor general that he was stepping down, Justice Panton’s ascent was, it was felt, mere formality.

In other words, Justice Panton has had time to think about the job. So, while this newspaper is aware of his perceived antipathy towards the press, which, perhaps, will cause him to be contrarian to any suggestion there from, we think it is long enough time, and that it would be useful if he told the public what he intends to make of it. It would not only enhance transparency, but help to build trust in the commission, which can use any amount it can get at this time.

As Justice Panton would be aware, surveys of Jamaicans consistently show that upwards of 80 per cent believe the country to be highly corrupt, and large swathes of the population lack confidence in the critical institutions of the State, including Parliament, political parties, the constabulary, the judiciary and the public bureaucracy. This distrust is only aggravated by the ongoing, and credible, allegations of corruption against public officials, as well as stories, such as that last week from Dirk Harrison, the commission’s former director of prosecutions, of building contractors who no longer bid on public-sector projects because of kickbacks demanded by community extortionists, police personnel and politicians.

Dirk Harrison, a former contractor general, whose old office was subsumed into the new Integrity Commission – which also assumed the jobs of the separate agencies which police the behaviour of legislators and public servants – had a rocky one year with the restructured body, which he clearly felt was less than robust, if not anodyne, in pursuing corruption. The public, we fear, largely shares that view. Justice Panton has an opportunity to press reset.

We appreciate that it is often in the character of judges to appear distant from public discourse on the cases over which they preside. But it would do Justice Panton good to be reminded that the chairman’s seat at the Integrity Commission isn’t the same as the bench at the Court of Appeal, where processes are often slow and a sense of aloofness seemingly deemed a virtue.

Integrity Commission

The public wants assurance that the Integrity Commission is appropriately engaged. The constraint imposed by Section 53(3) of the law, which prohibits the disclosure, until its end, of any investigation being undertaken by the commission, is understood. We are happy they have petitioned for its amendment.

But there are other areas, even without the constraints, where the commission has been insufficiently transparent. Its first annual report, sent to Parliament over the summer, was notable for not identifying legislators who failed to file assets and liabilities reports on time and if others, including Prime Minister Andrew Holness, with ‘not cleared’ filings from prior years had, ultimately, complied with the law.

Justice Panton’s engagement with the public should include stated timelines for having all its key positions filled and a broad outline of the commission’s work programme in those areas not dependent on the exigencies of public corruption. For instance, the law mandates the Integrity Commission to “determine the extent of financial losses, and such other losses to public bodies, private individuals and organisations, including losses sustained by the private sector, as a result of acts of corruption”.

This kind of quantification, and the opportunity costs it represents, will no doubt help to concentrate minds on the crisis of corruption, but the data will only be arrived at through serious research and analysis, which suggests the commission collaborating with the private sector and academia in getting the job done. But, first, it has to start.

More critically, though, the fight against corruption needs a champion. Institutionally, the Integrity Commission is a start. But institutions need live bodies, with identifiable faces, if they are to have real impact. The question: Is Justice Paton willing and ready to be the Integrity Commission’s?