Editorial | Now that the PM has spoken ...

Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ call on Tuesday for government legislators to halt their assault on the Integrity Commission (IC) is a welcomed intervention, which we hope will be adhered to.

But the prime minister perhaps should also make clear that those remarks were not merely a pro forma declaration to appease the administration’s critics, but will lead to a change in the tone and substance of the debate on the future of this critical anti-corruption institution. Put another way, Mr Holness’ declaration about parliament’s law-making powers, and defence of the right of MPs to “express their perspectives within the House and have the protection of Parliament”, should not be interpreted, notwithstanding the authority afforded by the constitution, as an unfettered right to abuse that privilege.

For, as Mr Holness suggested, seemingly winning the argument would, in the long run, be only a mirage if it leads to the destruction of an institution. And the administration won’t emerge unscathed if Jamaicans, as they do now, perceive a mission to neuter, if not eviscerate, the commission.

The latest pounding of the commission in Parliament was from former national security minister, Robert Montague, before Mr Holness’ intervention on Tuesday. He again attacked the credibility of the commission, accused it of being unfair towards him, and again, by innuendo, suggested that it operated with class bias.

Before that, last weekend, Everald Warmington, a junior minister in Mr Holness’ administration and persistent anti-IC hound, branded the anti-corruption body a “rogue organisation” that had to be “reined in”.

By that, Mr Warmington meant that the commission’s powers of investigation should be circumscribed and that it should be subject to the direct oversight of politicians – positions Mr Warmington has previously presented to a parliamentary committee reviewing the Integrity Commission Act.

What was, however, different about his recent assault was his revelation that his attacks are also driven by personal conflicts with the commission. The IC has apparently sought to recheck some of Mr Warmington’s old integrity filings.

NO CONFIDENCE

Legislators, and specified public servants above a certain pay grade, have to file annual asset and liability statements with the commission, which also polices the award and implementation of government contracts.

Mr Warmington has, however, recommended that the law be changed to prevent the IC from investigating any matter that predates its 2018 launch, when it assumed the functions of three predecessor agencies.

“These guys go back 10 and 20 years, asking some people to give more information on your declaration that was accepted already,” Mr Warmington complained to governing Jamaica Labour Party supporters at a regional conference on Saturday.

“They wrote to me and asked me for more information on one of my returns. I gave them a copy of what [the commission’s chairman Seymour] Panton signed that year (for which the information was sought).”

Mr Warmington suggested that the filing at the time was “found … to be normal”. Apparently, it was subsequently questioned.

“I [am] not taking that nonsense from any of them,” he said.

It might have been par for the course if such griping was confined to Mr Warmington, whose reputation as an unguided political missile is perhaps surpassed only by that for his boorishness. But the warfare has been engaged by even the most senior members of the Government, including Justice Minister Delroy Chuck and the legal and constitutional affairs minister, Marlene Malahoo Forte.

Last week, Mr Chuck told Parliament that government members had no confidence in reports issued by the commission, which he claimed “lacks integrity”.

The cover for his attack was the commission’s revisiting of a report it issued a year ago to clear former People’s National Party National Security Minister Peter Bunting for approving gun licences to two people with intelligence ‘traces’ against them, while leaving in place its adverse comments against Mr Bunting’s successor, Mr Montague.

The IC reversed its position after reviewing evidence showing that Mr Bunting acted in accordance with the advice of the Firearm Licensing Authority’s review board, rather than merely on his own discretion, as is allowed. Mr Montague, in exercising his discretion, acted counter to the advice of the review board.

 

RESPECTFUL DEBATE

This, however, is not the Government’s only peeve with the IC, which, for reasons that are not clear, has failed to certify Prime Minister Holness’ income, assets and liabilities filing for 2021. Disaffection over this issue was apparently exacerbated in February by how the IC dealt with a report of an investigation into whether Mr Holness influenced the award of contracts to a friend and business colleague when he was education minister.

The IC sent to Parliament a report that its director of investigation had concluded that Mr Holness had broken the Government’s procurement guidelines. However, within 24 hours, during which there was much political fallout, it tabled another document saying that its director of corruption prosecution had ruled that the prime minister had no case to answer. The commission said it merely followed the rules.

Quarrels have also erupted over Mr Holness’ failure to acknowledge the commission’s invitation that he and his Cabinet sign a Leadership Code of Conduct.

Ms Malahoo Forte accused the IC of going “all over the place with a shaming approach”, rather than “requesting a formal meeting with either the Cabinet or the parliamentary body” to encourage the signing of the code. The code resulted from anti-corruption training sessions with the Cabinet between November 2020 and February 2021, the commission has explained.

As chairman of the Cabinet and leader of his party it would be expected that an invitation to sign the code would automatically be understood to be also directed to the group that shares collective responsibility for the policies of the Jamaican state.

 

Perhaps now that Mr Holness has spoken his legislators will not only change their tone to one of respectful debate about the future of the IC, but ditch the proposals that can only be aimed at making it impotent. Should that goal be achieved, it would ultimately be damaging to Mr Holness’ prime ministerial legacy.

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: The above editorial replaces an earlier edition which was prepared before and without knowledge of the prime minister’s statement to Parliament late yesterday evening.