Editorial | A case for transparency

Given that it largely played out in public and her bid for the Commonwealth secretary-general’s job was backed by Jamaica’s government makes it obvious that Kamina Johnson Smith wasn’t on a private frolic, in search of personal gain when private sector people paid an American company for her international public relations campaign.

Nonetheless, Wilfred Rattigan’s suit seeking to determine whether Ms Johnson Smith and the foreign ministry, which she leads, followed the rules for reporting gifts received by government and its servants is a welcome development, even if it doesn’t actually get to court because the information becomes available before then. Hopefully, the discussion will bring transparency to an issue that has remained far too murky, while reinforcing to public officials their obligations in these situations. That might result in a gain in trust for the state bureaucracy.

This, unfortunately, is unlikely to be the perspective from which the island’s political tribes view the issue. Supporters of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) will perceive Mr Rattigan’s action as a wanton assault on Ms Johnson Smith and the government. For the partisans of the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP), it’s an opportunity to embarrass the Holness administration and advance the party’s electoral prospects.

It’s a far way before the court adjudicates on the matter, if it ever reaches that stage. The government might yet provide clear answers to Mr Rattigan’s questions. In the meantime, both sides should curb their instincts to scratch and gloat, while discussing the larger principles that have been raised.

FAILED ATTEMPT

Last June, Ms Johnson Smith, the foreign minister, failed in an attempt to dislodge Baroness Patricia Scotland as Commonwealth secretary-general, after Jamaica broke from a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) agreement to support Baroness Scotland’s quest for a second term. Kingston put up its own candidate.

The Jamaican Government tallied its direct spending on Ms Johnson Smith campaign at J$18.2 million. Months after the election it emerged that US$99,000 the American consulting/public relations firm, Finn Partners, Inc, charged for its work on her candidacy was paid by “corporate Jamaica”. Finn in its filings with the US government declared Ms Johnson Smith as the principal to whom it was contracted.

Later, the information minister, Robert Morgan, named Keith Duncan, the CEO of the JMMB financial group, as well the conglomerates, GraceKennedy and Musson’s Group, led, respectively, by Don Wehby and P. B. Scott, as contributors to the payment. Other entities or individuals were involved, Mr Morgan said, but they wished to remain private.

This newspaper, as it was then, remains exceedingly uncomfortable with this posture and reiterates its position of last September, “Transparency provides assurance that special interests and undesirable elements, who have deep pockets, are unable to secretly pay for control of public policy.”

OBLIGED

What Mr Rattigan claims, and is seeking to ascertain through administrative orders from the court, is that Ms Johnson Smith and her ministry were obliged under the Financial Administration and Audit Act (FAAA) and related regulations, to record and report the gift, but failed to do so. And the finance ministry failed to ensure that they fulfilled that responsibility.

He also claims that Ms Johnson Smith, as a public official, was required by law to report the US$99,000 as a gift in what is presumably her private assets, liabilities and income filings with the Integrity Commission.

Mr Rattigan, a lawyer and a former agent of America’s Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), rests the burden of his case on a requirement under the FAAA for public officials to be aware of and follow the guidelines governing the handling of public resources, including gifts. In the circumstance, the US$99,000, he says in an affidavit, was to the benefit of Ms Johnson Smith in her official capacity “and by extension to the Jamaican government”. The foreign ministry, therefore, had a responsibility to record the gift in accordance with the rules set out by the finance ministry, which in turn failed to enforce its own regulations.

Mr Rattigan’s conclusion that the rules were not followed is apparently based on the fact that when he asked for the relevant documents from the finance ministry, via an access to information request, he was told that the information didn’t exist in the ministry.

The finance ministry’s regulatory document has detailed rules for handling the receipt of gifts, including that acceptance be formally approved by the accounting officers (permanent secretaries in ministries) or the heads of departments and agencies, and in some instances by the Cabinet. With respect to cash donations, the money first goes in a deposit account, but the finance ministry has to be advised, “requesting its incorporation in the Estimates of Expenditure or Supplementary Estimates as Appropriation-in-Aid”.

Adds the document, “The terms and conditions of gifts to be accepted must be agreed in writing and signed by both the donor and the recipient of the gifts.”

The intention and potential value of the rules are obvious.