Neither gov’t nor IC should hold absolute power

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to the commentary by Kristen Gyles, titled ‘Matthew Samuda’s question’, published in The Gleaner on July 24. This commentary follows up to Minister Samuda’s earlier July 10 proposal to shift review of members of parliament statutory declarations from the Integrity Commission (IC) to the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

There is no inherent conflict of interest in the current oversight design. Instead, it is a “prime example of a functioning check and balance system, or a two-way street”.

Parliament checks the Integrity Commission (IC) through institutional and financial authorisations, while IC checks Parliament by enforcing ethical standards and investigating potential corruption among lawmakers.

This balance matters because:

•Power is split: No single branch or entity holds absolute control.

•Rules apply equally: Lawmakers remain subject to the very oversight and transparency standards they establish.

•Trust grows: The public sees that leaders are actively monitored to keep governance honest.

Suggesting that the FID take over the review of MP’s filings disrupts this delicate equilibrium (balance). Moving accountability functions away from an independent watchdog risks undermining the mutual accountability already hard-coded into our democratic framework.

Neither Parliament nor the IC should hold absolute power, but stripping the IC of its core oversight duties weakens the independent barrier we need against corruption. Preserving this two-way street ensures that the system guards itself effectively without shifting power closer to executive or legislative self-policy.

CARGILL KELLY