Editorial | MPs less accountable than Portmore mayor

Unlike the chairmen of Jamaica’s other local government authorities, who are chosen by their colleagues, Leon Thomas, the mayor of Portmore, was directly elected to the post.

The voters, if they believe that Mr Thomas is guilty of “gross misconduct”, or has been derelict in his duties, can seek to have him removed. What they would need to do is start a petition outlining the allegations against the mayor, and get it signed by 25 per cent of the registered voters in Portmore. They would then forward the petition to the local government minister, Desmond McKenzie.

McKenzie would be obligated, under Section 18 (3) of the Local Governance Act of 2016, to “institute proceedings to determine whether the allegations are substantial and proven”. The law does not provide a mechanism by which this is to be done, but if the process concluded that Mr Thomas was guilty, Minister McKenzie would be required to take a resolution to Parliament “for the removal of the mayor”.

“Upon the passing by both Houses of Parliament of a resolution brought under Subsection 3, the mayor shall cease to hold office,” the legislation says.

Alternatively, impeachment of a mayor of a municipality (Portmore is the only one) can be initiated if two-thirds of its council members (in Portmore’s case, nine of 13 councillors) support allegations of misconduct and vote for his removal. The minister would then follow the same procedure as with a petition by voters.

ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT

We find this law to be especially significant, given the seeming reluctance of Parliament to take up the bill that would allow the impeachment of members of parliament (MPs) and senators who engaged “in egregious conduct or other misbehaviour…which is so serious in nature as to render the holder of the office unfit to hold that office; or bring the office held by the person into disrepute”.

A bill to this effect was first tabled in 2011 by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) administration of Bruce Golding, Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ predecessor as leader of the party, and, for a brief stint, as head of the Government. Mr Golding’s administration imploded over the Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke extradition scandal before he was able to push the legislation through Parliament. It then languished for eight years, across two administrations, until it, with a few revisions, was reprised earlier this year by the opposition People’s National Party (PNP) leader, Mark Golding – no relation to his JLP namesake.

Mark Golding’s impetus was the scandal surrounding George Wright, the JLP’s then MP for Central Westmoreland. In April, a video began circulating on social media of a man violently beating a woman, at points with a stool. It was claimed that the batterer was Mr Wright and the victim his partner, Taneisha Singh. Both had separately filed complaints against the other, alleging assault. Neither followed through. Mr Wright has not denied the allegations against him, but neither did he confirm the accusations.

Bruce Golding’s original bill was aimed primarily against public officials who stuck their hands in the public purse, or whose conduct relating to the performance of their jobs was so outrageous that it elicited public opprobrium. Mark Golding’s version does the same, but has language that would seemingly ensnare behaviour of the type of which Mr Wright was accused.

The George Wright matter has since receded from intense public focus. He ostensibly resigned from the JLP and is supposedly a cross-bencher, although he has declared his continued support for the Government’s policies and programmes.

BETWEEN VALHALLA AND PURGATORY

An opposition motion to censure him over the viral video is stuck somewhere between Valhalla and purgatory. There is, it seems, the slimmest chance of its resurrection.

But whatever may be the fate of George Wright, this newspaper believes the impeachment bill should not be allowed to atrophy. It should be the subject of a robust review, adjustments made where necessary, and ultimately passed by the legislature. It should be sent to a joint select committee of Parliament.

We appreciate that this is not an ordinary bill. It is one requiring amendments to the Constitution. Because of some of the clauses it would change, in some instances, it would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Parliament.

It has already met the criteria for time spent before debate, but is likely to be in danger of falling off the Order Paper for lack of action by the Government. Which is what usually happens to private members’ bills – those by the Opposition or ruling party backbenchers – about which the Government is not keen.

It might be that Prime Minister Holness proposes to place this issue among a suite of constitutional reform measures, including removing the Queen as Jamaica’s head of state, which he proposes to launch in the new year. Should that be the case, we suggest that like the matter of Jamaica becoming a republic, it is placed separately on a fast track, as an issue on which there was previously cross-party consensus. In any event, should the bill fall off the Order Paper, Mr Golding should immediately retable it.

There are several factors why a bill with the tenets of this one is important, not least of which is the view of the majority of Jamaicans – upwards of 70 per cent – that their public officials are corrupt. Less than half trust politicians and Parliament. Yet, people who sit in the legislature get to make far-reaching decisions over citizens’ lives. And they have control over huge amounts of public resources. Why should they be any less accountable than Mayor Thomas in Portmore?