The commission’s image has been badly damaged

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Having regard to all that has come to light so far, I wouldn’t say the Integrity Commission was motivated by malice in its handling of the report under discussion. Rather, it seems that the move was an attempt to demonstrate the practical implications of the so-called ‘gag’ clause of the act, thereby generating public opinion around the agenda to have the clause removed.

Evidently, the actual approach has not achieved the desired objective.

There is little doubt, if any, that the dominant public perception is that the commission’s image has been badly damaged. There is now a huge question mark regarding the commission’s ability to continue functioning with integrity in its current configuration. I hope an amicable resolution can be found soon enough.

DERVAL GRAHAM