Editorial | Waking the ombudsman

The brewing contention between the People’s National Party (PNP) and the mayor of Montego Bay over the alleged removal of the party’s election advertising from the city again revives questions about the practicality of the political ombudsman in its current form and how it now conducts its business.

It is also a reminder of the lack of transparency with which those who were delegated the ombudsman job have conducted themselves, and of this newspaper’s insistence on updating the Political Code of Conduct to, among other things, affirm the critical role of journalists in democratic societies, and the obligation of politicians to ensure that they do not subject journalists to intimidation or violence, or the threat thereof.

The political ombudsman used to be an independent, stand-alone commission of Parliament until the eve of the February 2024 municipal elections when the government wrong-headedly caused it to be subsumed into the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), whose nine members, “indivisibly”, became the ombudsman.

There is little doubt that over more than four decades, the ECJ has done an excellent job in management of Jamaica’s election system, transforming it from one steeped in fraud and corruption to a process that enjoys global confidence. But that is on a technical side of the system: advising on legislation; certifying that the voters’ register is regularly updated; and ensuring that the voting process is efficient and credible.

SOMETHING DIFFERENT

The political ombudsman did, or is supposed to do, something different.

That office monitored the behaviour and actions of political parties and their backers to ensure that their conduct didn’t disturb the peace, spark tensions, or incite violence between rival party supporters. The ombudsman also investigated, and ruled on, specific complaints against politicians for breaches of the agreed code of political conduct.

Or, as the elections monitoring group, Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE), observed when the Government was pushing ahead with the misguided plan to dump the political ombudsman into the ECJ, the ECJ would now be asked to adjudicate on “ethical questions which are normally dealt with by the political ombudsman”.

“Saddling the ECJ with this responsibility overlooks the reality that its membership includes politicians,” CAFFE said. Among the ECJ’s members are four representatives – a pair each – from the two big political parties.

This newspaper remains confounded by the ECJ’s failure, even more than a year later, to issue a public report on how the parties, their candidates and their supporters adhered to the political code of conduct during the February 2024 municipal elections. Even if they were on their best behaviour and there were absolutely no reports or accusations of misconduct (which we doubt), the ECJ had a moral, if not legal obligation, to inform Jamaicans of its perspective and conclusions on the question.

A general election is constitutionally due by September. The political parties are already in campaign mode. Their paraphernalia has begun to emerge in communities across the island.

The PNP has claimed that in St James, of which Montego Bay is the capital, the chairman of the parish’s municipal corporation, Richard Vernon, has caused the removal of its “advertising boards and other paraphernalia”.

ALLOWED

The party argues that, even without the consent of the municipal government, its ads in public spaces are allowed under the advertising regulations of the Town and Country Planning Act that permits “any advertising specifically related to a pending parliamentary or local government election”.

It claims that the actions of Mayor Vernon, a member of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), were politically motivated.

Of greater concern to this newspaper was the warning by a PNP St James councillor, Kerry Thomas, of a likely tit-for-tat if the party’s material continued to be removed.

“Even without us saying anything, a PNP supporter will touch a JLP banner, and that will create an environment we don’t want in the parish,” he warned.

Whatever the perceived provocation, the PNP must urge restraint and forcefully condemn, if it happens, any act of vandalism by its supporters against JLP paraphernalia.

The PNP says that it has raised the issue with the ECJ, which hasn’t said if the matter is being investigated or has been resolved. Given the complexity of the matters the ECJ already dealt with prior to assuming the ombudsman’s job, the commission should explain to the public the process by which it handles its additional function. Transparency builds trust and credibility.

The ECJ also needs to open a conversation of whether the existing code of political conduct is fit for purpose. In the face of the bullseyes that were placed on the backs of six of The Gleaner’s reporters last year by false claims on social media that their reporting was deliberately biased against the JLP administration, protection of journalists is paramount in the code.

It is past time that the ECJ breaks its silence on these issues and acts. Or better, the Government should revert to the old arrangement and name a stand-alone ombudsman.