Mark Golding | Integrity Commission – setting record straight on its origins

The Gleaner editorial of March 29 made reference to the origins of the Integrity Commission, the act that establishes and governs that entity, and the position of the Opposition with respect to it, on which I wish to shed light.

This is necessary so that the public may be accurately informed about not only the origins of this relatively new institution, but also the reasons why the Opposition is strongly opposed to the proposals being advanced by members of the Government to emasculate it.

PRELIMINARY STEP

The Gleaner is in favour of enshrining the Integrity Commission in the Constitution, and so are we. However, as an important preliminary step in anticipation of this, the Opposition proposes that the current review of the Integrity Commission Act be completed and that any consequential amendments are enacted before the act is so enshrined.

I note The Gleaner’s position of disagreement with this sequence. However, once the Integrity Commission is enshrined in the Constitution, it will be more difficult to make those amendments. It, therefore, makes sense to complete those amendments first. Given the important role that a strong anti-corruption culture and architecture play in supporting development and attracting investment, the process of reviewing and then amending the act should be undertaken with urgency.

CONCEPTUALISATION OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

The above-referenced editorial also asserted that former Prime Minister Bruce Golding’s proposal for the establishment of the position of a special prosecutor “evolved to the current single anti-corruption agency”. This assertion is not accurate. His bill for a special prosecutor met with a demand for significant amendments and was ultimately abandoned in House of Representatives. It was never revived.

The subsequent creation of an Integrity Commission by way of the amalgamation of the three existing anti-corruption agencies into one, with prosecutorial powers and an information-sharing mandate among all law enforcement and tax agencies, was based on the recommendations of an advisory committee that I established under the government of the Most Hon Portia Simpson-Miller. While we retained a few provisions from the abandoned bill relating to the prosecution of corruption offences, the scope of the present act is much wider. It has consolidated and significantly strengthened the anti-corruption machinery; provided for the sharing of information between the commission and all other law-enforcement, revenue-collection agencies, and overseas anti-corruption institutions; and substantially increased the penalties for corruption offences.

The advisory committee comprised retired Justice Karl Harrison (chair); Professor Trevor Munroe (National Integrity Action); Maurice Bailey (then director of legal reform in the Ministry of Justice); Dr Eileen Boxill (former director of legal reform); and Shirley Miller, also a former director of legal reform.

That committee reviewed the legislative and operational framework of the existing anti-corruption agencies in Jamaica and the comparable legislative schemes in other countries. The model that Jamaica adopted drew on Sierra Leone’s legislation (Anti-Corruption Act, 2008). The Sierra Leone model is rooted in the promotion of a zero-tolerance approach to corruption, starting at the highest levels of leadership, and the promotion of a culture of intolerance towards corruption throughout society.

The advisory committee was attracted to that model because of its prosecutorial function and oversight structure, which, it was felt, would best fit our need for a specialised single entity that would have reporting, investigative, and prosecutorial powers and responsibilities. Each of these functions would comprise a division headed by a director, with overall oversight by a board of commissioners. The board of commissioners, as the head of the entity to which the divisional directors report, was a selling point as it provides the checks and balances necessary to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency given the commission’s extensive powers to tackle corruption.

THE ADVENT OF CURRENT ACT

The advisory committee’s recommendations were approved by Cabinet, the drafting instructions for the Integrity Commission Bill were developed from those recommendations, and I then took the bill to Parliament and took it through the rigorous review of a Joint Select Committee.

Parliament was soon dissolved for the February 2016 elections, after which the new Government retabled the bill with some further refinements, one of which was the creation of the position of an executive director (currently held by Mr Christie). The bill was passed by Parliament in July 2017, and the minister of justice brought it into force in March 2018.

THE RECENT CONTROVERSY

While the commission’s recent handling of the communications to Parliament in the matter involving the prime minister was problematic, this should not be manipulated into a pretext for undermining the commission. To the contrary, the commissioners should learn from this incident and adopt a protocol for the future to ensure that it is not repeated.

Going forward, if the director of investigations refers the results of an investigation to the director of corruption prosecutions and (prior to the report on the investigation being sent to Parliament) the director of corruption prosecutions reviews the matter and determines that no prosecution will ensue, that information should be released to Parliament contemporaneously. It is now clear that even a short delay between the release of these two aspects of the matter can have deleterious consequences.

However, the society should be vigilant in resisting some politicians’ attempt to manipulate the furore arising from that episode as a pretext for dismantling Jamaica’s relatively new and robust anti-corruption architecture. The amendments being proposed by MP Warmington would significantly weaken the Integrity Commission and do not have the support of the Opposition.

It bears repeating that the People’s National Party is committed to the highest standards of anti-corruption. Our intention is to nurture and strengthen the Integrity Commission, not to weaken it. This should include enshrining the Integrity Commission in the Constitution once the current review of the act is completed and any consequential amendments are made.

Mark Golding is president of the People’s National Party and leader of the Opposition. Send feedback to leaderoftheopposition876@gmail.com.