Editorial | Keep Panton, Crawford

The balance of probabilities weighs heavily in favour of the families and close friends of Seymour Panton and Eric Crawford urging them to decline, if asked, to continue as members of the Integrity Commission (IC) when their term expire in February.

Such sentiments would be understandable, given the withering assaults to which the commission has been subjected from political partisans, especially members of the current Government.

But, as empathetic as we are about the pressures faced by the IC’s commissioners and staff, as well as the likely concerns of the people closest to them, this newspaper still makes these two suggestions:

• Governor General Sir Patrick Allen should ask Justice Panton and Mr Crawford to remain; and

• Once asked, they should accept, even if not for a full term of seven years.

It is not that this newspaper believes that there are not other people capable of serving on the Integrity Commission, but the departure, especially of Justice Panton, the chairman at this time, in the current circumstances, would be interpreted as capitulation that would provide a toehold for the vulgarians. Their pressure for the overthrow of this critical anti-corruption institution would be even more unrelenting.

MOSTLY FRAUGHT RELATIONSHIPS

Launched in 2018, the IC, it is recalled, subsumed the former contractor general, which policed the award of implementation of government contacts and the two separate commissions to which legislators and public officials were required to file annual assets and liability statements. The IC was also given independent prosecutorial authority, subject to powers of the director of public prosecutions (DPP) under the island’s Constitution.

Not unexpectedly, in the years since its launch, the Integrity Commission has had mostly fraught relationships with the people who have been the subject of its investigations and report. These, primarily, have been public officials, or ministers of governments and people who are close to them, including business partners.

More recently, though, over the past two years particularly, the downward spiral in the relationship between the Government and the IC has become even sharper.

This burst into the open when the commission –which is precluded by law from disclosing its investigations before they are completed and the findings tabled in Parliament – issued a report on its investigation of the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA).

The report criticised former National Security Minister Robert Montague’s approach to returning, on appeal, gun licences to several people whose permits were rescinded by the FLA. Some of those persons had “negative” intelligence “traces” against them.

Mr Montague, now a Government backbencher, argued in Parliament that he had been treated differently, and with bias, compared with how the IC handled complaints against another former national security minister, Peter Bunting, a member of the Opposition People’s National Party.

Even senior members of the Government joined the baying at the IC.

However, there were material differences in the two cases: Mr Bunting, the IC director of investigation acknowledged (although in an amendment to the original report), acted on the advice of an established review panel, not only at his own discretion.

In Mr Montague’s case, the IC noted “the unquestioned discretion of the minister” in firearm licences appeals. It nonetheless determined that in specific circumstances Mr Montague did not exercise good judgement.

DIRECT CONTROL OF POLITICIANS

Since then the relationship has worsened even more, especially over the IC’s failure, over the last two years, to certify Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ assets and liabilities filings, and for a report in September, in which it called on the finance ministry’s Financial Investigations Division, a quasi law-enforcement body, to conduct a deeper probe of the PM’s finances.

Mr Holness has gone to court seeking to quash that report – a right that The Gleaner defends to the hilt.

In the face of these and other developments, including the IC disclosure in its annual report that eight unnamed legislators – which it has been assumed are members of the ruling party – were under investigation for illicit enrichment, government members of parliament have proposed reforms that would weaken the commission and put it under direct control of politicians.

They have also pursued a narrative that the commission is anti-government, while Mr Holness has claimed that he has been specifically targeted.

It is against this backdrop that the terms of Justice Panton, a retired former president of the Court of Appeal, and Mr Crawford, a former accountant and auditor, will expire in February.

Their continuation is within the gift of Sir Patrick, who, in the language of the legislation, “may” offer them another term.

The governor general, in this circumstance, has to consult with the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition. He is, however, under no obligation to follow their advice. In other words, it is entirely Sir Patrick’s call.

The right one would be to urge Messrs Panton and Crawford to stay, and for Mr Panton – a tough man who is sometimes combative, is intellectually sharp, always fair and of great honesty – to continue as chairman.

Thereafter, the commission can decide how to proceed with the several directors, including Greg Christie, the executive director, and Craig Beresford, the director of information of complaints, whose contracts expire at various periods in 2025.

Should anyone perceive bias at the IC, it should be recalled that it was Mr Christie, who in the early 2000s, as contractor general, awoke the organisation hitherto – Rip Van Winkle-style – and really placed anti-corruption action on the national agenda. He was constantly at odds with the previous administration.

Recall, too, that Mr Beresford, as acting contractor general, invited the DPP to bring criminal charges against Portia Simpson Miller’s entire Cabinet for failing to release Cabinet submissions about several contracts.