Editorial | When the Integrity Commission reports

This month, towards its end, will mark a year since the promulgation of the law establishing the new Integrity Commission and the appointment of the five commissioners charged with overseeing its work. In that regard, the group, chaired by retired judge Karl Harrison, will soon send its first annual report for tabling in Parliament.

We assume that Justice Harrison has begun to contemplate what he wants to tell the legislators and the tone he intends to adopt in the review. After all, a year is not, in the larger scheme of things, an overly long period. So, the commission, which subsumes the separate agencies to which parliamentarians and public officials file their integrity declarations, as well as the office of the contractor general, is still into the difficult job of building out the new institution, while digesting the functions of the old ones.

Unfortunately, or some might see it as fortuitous for the commissioners, they will have to present their first report at a time when the convergence of a series of events is causing greater public concern and impatience with, and the diminution of trust for, public officials in Jamaica. This will invite greater scrutiny of what the commissioners say, and how they say it.

For instance, it has emerged in recent days that no reports of the old Parliamentary Integrity Commission has been laid in Parliament for the years 2014 through 2016. That isn’t the fault of the commission. Those reports, according to the Integrity Commission, which is now the responsible oversight body, are holed up in the Office of the Prime Minister. In that regard, the public doesn’t know if their members of parliament filed their annual income and assets and liability statements, or which of them failed to meet this obligation.

This is important, for the commission’s review of these declarations, which are not public, is the closest thing the public has to an assurance that politicians are not abusing public office for private gain. Prime Minister Andrew Holness, or whoever is responsible, should get an earful about the delays.

PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF PERSONS

There is, too, the ongoing scandal at the Government’s oil refinery, Petrojam, over allegations of cronyism, reckless spending and inept management, including being unable, over a five-year period, to account for more than 600,000 barrels of oil, with a potential loss to taxpayers of J$5.2 billion. Prime Minister Andrew Holness has ordered a forensic audit of that oil loss, but it emerged Petrojam’s managers were having a hand, since stayed or reversed, in drafting the terms of reference for that review.

Last week, when Transparency International (TI) issued its latest corruption perception index, Jamaica ranked 70th in the league table of the world’s least corrupt countries, down two places from its previous standing. Further, our score remained static at 44 out of a possible 100. Countries with scores below 50 are deemed to have a serious problem of corruption. Petrojam, TI noted, showed that “nepotism, mismanagement of public funds, and other forms of corruption, are still well rooted in Jamaica and the Caribbean”.

It is likely that the Integrity Commission, regardless of any other probe at Petrojam, has initiated its own investigations. The public doesn’t know that for a fact. Section 53 (3) precludes the agency from saying, until after it has concluded its investigation and its findings have been tabled in Parliament. The supposed intention of this law is to protect the reputation of persons who might be vindicated by the quasi-judicial investigation of the Integrity Commission.

But for exceptional circumstances, no such cover is afforded to accused persons, neither criminal nor civil matters, in a court of law. Further, this shield may well be abused if a minister is tardy in tabling a report.

We believe that, on balance, there is greater potential damage to public confidence that Jamaica is serious about eliminating corruption in keeping secret the fact of an investigation, than what the knowledge of that investigation might do to a person who, ultimately, is vindicated. The commissioners, in their report, should, if not call for total excision, strongly recommend its amendment to allow them discretion in the matter.

They should also call for amendments to establish timelines within which the prime minister and the opposition leader must respond to all statements sent to them about parliamentarians, and for ministers to table Integrity Commission reports in Parliament.