Editorial | PM should explain IC filing

It remains in his own and the country’s interest that Prime Minister Andrew Holness tell Jamaicans why the Integrity Commission (IC) has been unable to certify, and therefore publish, a summary of his assets and liabilities declaration for 2021.

The prime minister cannot help but be aware that the absence of clear information encourages speculation and innuendo which hurt his reputation and encourages cynicism among Jamaicans about the island’s integrity regulations. That further corrodes the low levels of trust Jamaicans have for the institutions of the State.

Jamaica’s integrity law requires that all legislators and public-sector employees above a certain pay grade make annual declarations to the Integrity Commission of their financial status. The aim is to prevent public officials from using their offices for private gain.

These declarations are due within three months after the end of the calendar year for review and certification by the Integrity Commission. The IC may request additional information or seek clarifications from the declarants.

In the case of the prime minister (PM) and the leader of the opposition, once their filings are certified by the commission, that law requires summaries of their assets and liabilities, including their sources of income, to be published in the official gazette and the press.

More than six months ago, the IC published those of the Opposition leader, Mark Golding, and his family. Those of Prime Minister Holness (and presumably his wife, Juliet, if they made a joint filing) remain outstanding. Mrs Holness is also a member of the Parliament.

NOT SIGNED OFF

Last week, the commission’s chairman, Seymour Panton, a retired president of the Court of Appeal, told this newspaper that Mr Holness’ filing had not yet been signed off on and, therefore, could not be published.

“The … commission has not sent the summary of the PM’s statutory declaration for gazetting, as it has not yet been duly completed as required by the law,” Justice Panton said.

The legislation prevents the Integrity Commission from speaking about its investigations unless the fact finding is completed and a report has been tabled in Parliament. The law also places severe limits on the ability of the commission’s members and staff to talk about information in their possession.

This is obviously the basis of the IC’s failure to say why it has not yet certified Mr Holness’ declaration. The commission could possibly circumvent the matter by sending a special report to Parliament on the matter, so that it has to be tabled.

However, there is nothing that prevents the prime minister from addressing the issue, making public his understanding of the matters that have given the IC pause.

It might be that with access to the information, Jamaicans might conclude that the Integrity Commission is behaving irrationally.

As we noted in January when we previously urged Mr Holness to be forthcoming on the matter, The Gleaner’s suggestion is not out of some voyeuristic interest in Mr Holness’s personal or family finances and wealth. Rather, transparency is a critical element of good governance, to which Mr Holness subscribes and for which he signed up when he threw his hat into the ring of electoral politics, and to become prime minister. In fact, Mr Holness not only endorsed the rule requiring the publication of the summary reports of the prime minister and leader of the Opposition, but is on record as favouring the rule’s eventual application to all MPs.

UNIMPEACHABLE

Moreover, the logic of politicians and senior public officials having to file integrity reports is unimpeachable. They have control over large amounts of public resources.

And while honour systems and self-regulation are worthy to ensure that officials in positions of trust are not tempted to abuse this privilege, independent and transparent oversight arrangements, which are enforceable, are better. In Jamaica’s case, the trust issue makes it imperative.

More than seven in 10 Jamaicans believe they live in a corrupt country; nearly half do not trust the legislature; and 46 per cent would tolerate a military coup if its aim was to tackle corruption. Additionally, 45 percent of Jamaicans are dissatisfied with how democracy actually works in the island.

In environments like these, leaders bear a heavier burden to build trust. Indeed, Mr Holness needs only remind himself of the fallout in January from an IC report, based on years-old investigation, which proposed that he be considered for prosecution for possibly influencing the award of small contracts to a friend. The commission’s director of corruption prosecution subsequently ruled that a case could not be sustained against the PM.