Editorial | Wrong call by IC committee

Two decades ago the late, distinguished Anguillan/Antiguan attorney, Bernice Lake, succinctly summed up an implicit promise that people who offer themselves for public office make, and which they are duty bound to fulfil if they are given the job.

At a seminar in Kingston on defamation and how the laws thereof, should apply to politicians, Ms Lake said: “When he throws his hat in the national arena, the politician does so on the basis of an implied promise to promote and protect free speech in the social interest of honest, open, and accountable government. He does so with the concomitant subordination of the right to privacy.

“Upon the assumption of office, he makes that promise expressly.”

The application of that principle, with its explicit commitment to transparency, transcends the specific issue of defamation, to embrace all aspects of good governance. And it is an ideal to which Prime Minister Andrew Holness has often declared his commitment, especially with respect to assets owned by legislators, and how those were accumulated.

Which makes sense. For people who have control, or influence, over taxpayers’ resources or public policy may be tempted to use their public office for private gain. In other words, they may be enticed into corruption.

It is against this backdrop that in 2017, as Parliament debated the Integrity Commission Act (ICA) that Dr Holness declared his support for the income, assets and liabilities filing being made public.

PUBLISH SUMMARIES

The bill, as was passed into law, requires the Integrity Commission (IC) to publish summaries of the annual income, assets and liabilities filings of the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition, but not other members of parliament.

Dr Holness said: “As we are all aware, I advanced the concept of full and complete disclosure. At this time the legislation limits this to the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition. We will be required to publish our assets and liabilities including, all forms of income, automobiles, savings accounts, real-estate mortgages, business investments, and the cash value of any life insurance.

“I believe that this disclosure should extend to all parliamentarians and also other public officials; but I am satisfied by the inclusion of Section 58 which provides that within two years, a decision will be made as to all other persons who will be required to disclose their assets and liabilities, and as to the form of that disclosure.”

The prime minister’s reference to Section 58 of the act was a small, relatively insignificant error. It is Section 60 of the ICA that the law “be reviewed from time-to-time by a committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed for this purpose”.

The Integrity Commission Act has, for much of the past year, been undergoing its first review by a joint committee of Parliament, which, it appears, is nearing the end of its sessions. Many suggestions, with potential to gravely undermine the efficacy of the IC have been raised in that committee, which hopefully, will not make it to the report which is eventually submitted to the full Parliament.

REJECTED

Unfortunately, one proposal in favour of transparency and trust in the integrity of public officials, which ought to be in the report, was, with bipartisan support, rejected by the committee. So, unless there is a shift in positions by the time the report is completed, Prime Minister Holness’ preference that public disclosure of integrity filings be “extended to all parliamentarians and also other public officials” will remain a dream.

“That one: definitely not accepted,” said Edmund Bartlett, the chairman of the review committee, when the issue arose at last week’s meeting.

Delroy Chuck, the justice minister, was a vehement “no!”.

Julian Robinson, a member of the parliamentary opposition and shadow finance minister, said he couldn’t support the recommendation.

No one, it appeared, had a clear, philosophically-based, or intellectually-sound, reason for opposing this call to transparency, except, maybe, that the information was their private business and shouldn’t be in the public domain.

However, politicians have periodically seen a value, or virtue, in making their financial declarations public.

In June 2016, for instance, when he was a deputy general secretary of the People’s National Party (PNP) and there were whispers about a home he had purchased, Mr Robinson publicly disclosed all his filings to the old parliamentary integrity commission, from the time he entered representational politics in 2011 up to the end of 2015.

“I don’t have anything to hide,” Mr Robinson said at the time. “I have dealt with my personal life above board; if somebody is going to make an issue, which is in my view a call on my integrity, then I am going to be upfront and open about what my income and assets are.”

In 2017, Mr Robinson’s PNP colleague and former minister, Phillip Paulwell, placed on his Facebook page all his filings, from the time he entered politics in 1995.

Such public declarations are, however, rare, and usually occur only when a politician has faced allegations of corruption and is under scrutiny.

Yet, there is little doubt that greater transparency on whether the assets of public officials match their known or accounted for incomes would benefit Jamaica, where eight in 10 people believe they live in a corrupt or highly corrupt country and 45 per cent would tolerate a military coup if its aim was to root out corruption.