Editorial | Unmuzzle the Integrity Commission

We are not aware that someone, as was the case earlier this month, with those for the previous three years, has, in Nicodemus fashion, tabled in the House the parliamentarians’ integrity report for 2017. We have reason to believe, however, that the report was prepared by the Integrity Commission and forwarded to the appropriate government minister to be formally presented to the legislature, which, essentially, would render it a public document.

If we are right – that the report has been ready for some time – the obvious questions are why the delay in its tabling, and what can be done to remedy this tardiness by public officials and, more particularly, elected politicians? In the absence of confirmation by the Integrity Commission and, or the island’s top political and legislative leaders, we have no certainty on the former questions, but we can speculate on possible reasons for a delay. It could be that someone has something that if not to hide, needs time to fix to conform to the regulations.

On the latter matter, that is a potential easy fix that is in the purview of Parliament. It is, however, unlikely to act without public pressure that carries the imprimatur of the Integrity Commission, which is why we again call for it to make the issue central in its report covering activities for 2018. It must say clearly that there are obvious flaws in the act, passed in October 2017, under which the restructured commission operates.

Recall that with the new law, the Integrity Commission subsumed the agency to which legislators filed their annual income, assets, and liability statements, as well as the one to which civil servants, at a certain benchmark, presented theirs. It also encompasses the role of what used to be the contractor general, who reviewed the awarding of government contracts and claims of irregularities related thereto.

Under the law, the returns by parliamentarians were supposed to be submitted for the calendar year, from January to December, but they are allowed up to the end of March the following year to complete their filings. However, about a third of parliamentarians never make that deadline. Often, several months later, the commission is fighting with legislators over no, or incomplete, filings.

“This unsatisfactory practice continues despite reminders sent to parliamentarians annually that supporting documents are expected along with their statutory declarations,” the commission said in its 2016 report, the latest available, which was submitted to Prime Minister Andrew Holness on August 31.

On the face of it, it took nearly six months for Prime Minister Holness to have the document tabled and become public. In the interim, much could have changed, or information that could have helped to inform debate on, or people’s understanding of integrity in public life, hidden or obscured.

NOT GOOD FOR TRANSPARENCY

There is little the Integrity Commission, given how the law is framed, can do about that. It is required to submit to Parliament its annual report, within three months of the end of the financial year, or any period after that which legislators approve. But the commission has no say in when the report is tabled, or how it is handled, after it submits to Parliament. That is not good for transparency.

The current environment, with its wave of allegations of public corruption, insists on change. We suggest that Section 36 of the act should be amended to say that if after 90 days after the commission submits either its annual or a special report to Parliament, and it is not tabled, then the commission is obligated to publish the document, including on its website.

Further, Section 53 (3) of the act, which precludes the commission or its investigators announcing the start of, or speaking about any investigation being undertaken until it has been tabled in Parliament, is in need of adjustment. The supposed intent of that clause was to prevent damage to people’s reputation as it was claimed was the case with the old Contractor General Act, when they could well be vindicated in the investigation.

The actual outcome of the clause is to breed distrust and undermine confidence in the commission. People believe it is being muzzled to protect public officials. The commission should be allowed, at the very least, to announce that it has opened investigation into a matter, for which a prescribed format can be developed.