EDITORIAL - Rebuild trust in DPP's office

An effective criminal prosecution system that is independent, efficient and fair is one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is charged with the responsibility of conducting prosecution of indictable offences under Jamaican law and is seen as the defender of the public good.

A report in this newspaper about the inaction in investigating the alleged corrupt acts of sitting Member of Parliament Joseph Hibbert raises questions about the DPP's performance.

The explanation given to this newspaper by the DPP, Ms Paula Llewellyn, that the police have yet to furnish her office with "certain things" is totally unacceptable and requires fuller explanation from the country's chief law-enforcement officer. Let us not forget that the British bridge-building company, Mabey & Johnson, pleaded guilty in 2009 to bribing public officials in Jamaica between 1993 and 2001 in order to secure government contracts.

Mabey cooperated with the Serious Fraud Office in England, and no doubt there are piles of evidence collected in this case. So why has there been no action for several months? If Mr Hibbert did nothing wrong, as he has said, the way to clear his name is for a thorough investigation to be done and a ruling be given by the DPP.

deliberate avoidance

One would find it difficult to convince cynics, and others, that there is deliberate avoidance on the part of the prosecutorial arms of Government in investigating a member of the ruling party. The DPP is likely to point to underfunding and lack of resources for the anaemic response in this case. That, we submit, would be a partial cop-out. By all means, the DPP's office should be smartly outfitted with all the requirements to foster efficient and effective execution of its duties, but even with limited resources the signal should be clear that corruption is at the top of the list.

Public officials find themselves in a special place from the ordinary man in the street. When public officials commit crimes, they violate the oath of office as well as the public trust placed in them. It is not the practice of our political parties to launch internal investigations into allegations of impropriety or criminality among their members. This means that the Office of the DPP has to be ever so vigilant in ensuring that public officials alleged to be corrupt are vigorously investigated and prosecuted.

The Hibbert case apart, the Office of the DPP has come in for immense public attention - from public squabbles with the INDECOM head to a resident magistrate, and the twists and turns in the never-ending case involving Member of Parliament Kern Spencer. The contractor general has repeatedly blamed the backlog-plagued DPP's office of handicapping the war against corruption.

While the independence of the Office of the DPP is a safeguard against corruption and interference in the administration of duties, the approach to the job and the application of these awesome powers must be subject to checks and balances. The Opposition's call for the DPP to subject itself to the scrutiny of a parliamentary oversight committee is an idea that deserves serious consideration in light of all that has happened in that office in recent times. The idea has been shrugged off with self-righteous indignation, but that position should not be allowed to stand.

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.