Commentary

Contractor General Greg Christie is not one to speak in understatements about public corruption, or to keep to himself his frustrations about how slowly the system goes about throwing the book at those he holds to have broken the rules.

In that regard, Mr Christie's complaint - contained in his report to Parliament for 2009 - about what he deems as the failure of the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to act with alacrity on matters referred to the DPP for prosecution is neither unexpected nor new.

Indeed, earlier this year, when the contractor general was making his case for a single agency to police public-sector corruption, with its own powers of prosecution, this newspaper remarked: "Mr Christie doesn't quite put it that way, but he feels that he is battling an inert prosecutorial system, represented by what he perceives as a somnolent Office of Director of Public Prosecutions ... ."

Mr Christie's specific concern at this time is that in the first 21 months of the tenure of the current DPP, Ms Paula Llewellyn, none of the matters he had referred to her office has led to charges and prosecutions before the court. At best, she had asked for further police investigations, beyond the probes already conducted by the Office of the Contractor General (OCG).

By contrast, he notes, Ms Llewellyn's predecessor, Mr Kent Pantry, had more than once initiated prosecutions on the strength of similar evidence presented by the OCG "without reference to the Jamaica Constabulary Force".

Of course, the DPP is an independent agent, subject to the control of no other authority, with the power under Section 94 of the Constitution to institute, undertake or take over or discontinue criminal prosecutions.

The independence granted to the DPP is for good reason and ought not to be trifled with. That, however, ought not to place the DPP, and the functioning of that office, beyond scrutiny, or even criticism.

Mr Christie, therefore, is within his right to express his concerns. It is in the public's interest that persons who are corrupt or whose actions facilitate corruption be brought to court with dispatch, signalling that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Interest in Reasonable speed

Others, too, particularly those accused of breaches of law, have an interest in the DPP proceeding with reasonable speed on referrals from the OCG. Accusations hanging over their heads create uncertainty and raise the maxim about delayed justice.

Of course, it is not always easy for logistical or strategic reasons for the DPP to act with the speed that either the OCG or public would prefer. And it is not always easily explainable.

Nonetheless, we feel that the rightful inde-pendence of the DPP does not obviate, especially in today's circumstances, the need for a level of public accountability, as was suggested to Ms Llewellyn's predecessor that he filed annual reports to Parliament. These now can be more detailed than Mr Pantry's efforts without impinging on the need for judicial fairness and tact.

Mr Christie's complaint also puts another issue back on the table: his call for that single anti-corruption agency with its own powers of prosecution. The administration has gone part of the way with legislation for a special prosecutor to investigate corruption. Barring a constitutional amendment, that person would be subject to the direction of the DPP.

The matter is worthy of serious debate.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.