Jamaica falls two spaces on Corruption Index 2018

Jamaica has fallen two places in the latest rankings of Transparency International’s 2018 Corruption Perception Index (CPI).

The country is now ranked 70 out of 180 countries and has a CPI score of 44.

Jamaica also scored a CPI of 44 in 2017 and 39 in 2016.

Transparency International, which released the rankings this morning, explains that the index, which ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and businesspeople, uses a scale of zero to 100, where zero is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean.

A CPI score of below 50 means that a country has a corruption problem.

Transparency International points out that more than two-thirds of countries score below 50 on this year’s CPI, with an average score of just 43.  

“It reveals that the continued failure of most countries to significantly control corruption is contributing to a crisis in democracy around the world.

“While there are exceptions, the data shows that despite some progress, most countries are failing to make serious inroads against corruption,” the international watchdog agency said.

Reacting to latest ranking, Professor Trevor Munroe, head of anti-corruption watch group National Integrity Action, said Jamaica’s slight drop is a cause for concern.

"It is a small slippage perhaps, but a worrying symbol," Munroe said this morning.

He said the marginal movement shows that the country still has a far way to go in stamping out corruption. 

The Petrojam scandal figured significantly in the latest ranking, among other factors, according to Munroe.

Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis released in December 2018 a damning report on the operations of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica and its affiliate, the state-owned oil refinery Petrojam, pointing to "explicit acts of nepotism" at both entities and deficiencies in human-resource recruitment and management practices.

Here are some of the findings contained in the 113-page report

- High levels of accountable and unaccountable oil losses.

- Management’s override of the procurement guidelines.

- Inconsistent recruitment and employment practices.

- Weakening financial position.

- Inadequate oversight and monitoring of Petrojam operations.

- Project cost overruns.

- Procurement practices undermined value for money objective.

- Questionable spending on donations and non-business events.

We want to hear from you! Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169, email us at editors@gleanerjm.com or onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com.