Jamaica has maintained a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) score of 44 since 2017, highlighting ongoing concerns about governance and accountability. Ranked 73rd out of 180 countries in the 2024 report by Transparency International, Jamaica trails several Caribbean nations, including Barbados and The Bahamas. The stagnant score comes amid tensions between the Government and the Integrity Commission, raising questions about the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts.

Reset on corruption

Jamaica Gleaner/13 Feb 2025

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL’S confirmation that Jamaica remains stuck in the bottom half of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), among the countries deemed to have a serious problem of governance and the management of state resources, ought to be a signal to the Government of the need for an urgent reset of its relations with the island’s anticorruption agencies.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness should start by seriously enforcing, and observing, his edict of two years ago against his legislators and party officials denigrating the Integrity Commission (IC); ensure an end to the dog whistles against the auditor general; and tell his members of parliament (MPS) to end their bid to neuter the IC to make it less transparent.

Mr Holness should also signal that he would have no objection – although it is not his call – if the governor general, Sir Patrick Allen, chose to reappoint the IC’S chairman, Justice Seymour Panton, and Eric Crawford when their terms end later this month. Although, either way, the die on that matter has already been cast.

Most people would be surprised, given the assault the IC has endured, if Justice Panton, a retired president of the Court of Appeal, and Mr Crawford, a former auditor, accepted an invitation to stay on, which is in Sir Patrick’s sole discretion. This newspaper hopes they would.

If they are indeed moving on, we expect Sir Patrick to choose successors of equal integrity and strength, who are willing to speak truth to power and to transparently fulfil their obligations of their office, in accordance with the law.

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

Transparency International is a global anticorruption, good governance and transparency NGO, whose annual CPI has become an important benchmark of how countries are performing on the corruption front.

Using a matrix that covers issues such as financial disclosure rules for public officials, the prevalence of bribery, diversion of state funds, public-sector nepotism and the management of conflicts of interest, the CPI scores countries from zero to 100, where zero is very corrupt and 100 indicates an absence of public corruption. A score of below 50 says that a country has a serious corruption problem – or the perception thereof.

In the index for 2024, published this week, Jamaica ranked 73rd of 180 countries, down four places from a year early. But more significant is the fact that the score of 44 which Jamaica recorded has been the same since 2017, the year it improved five points. Among its peers in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Jamaica ranked behind Barbados (23rd, with a score of 68); The Bahamas (28th, with a score of 65); St Vincent (32nd, with a score of 63); Dominica (36th, with a score of 60); St Lucia (38th, with a score of 59); and Grenada (46th, with a score of 56).

These rankings are important. While they are far from the sole basis on which foreigners make investments in countries, the credibility of the CPI causes it to be among the instruments relied upon when making such decisions.

In other words, a good CPI adds to a country’s comparative advantage. More importantly, it helps to enhance citizens’ trust in leaders and public officials, which strengthens social cohesion.

SUSTAINED EFFORT TO WEAKEN

This perception of Jamaica is not new. However, it is deeply troubling that the island’s CPI score has been static over the seven years since its big jump, which coincided with Parliament’s approval of legislation to establish the Integrity Commission.

It would be ironic if the Government’s attitude to, and fights with, the IC contributed to the lack of upward movement in the island’s CPI score.

Anyone who has been the subject of adverse findings or conclusions by the IC has an absolute right to disagree with it, as loudly as they wish, as well as to challenge those findings/conclusions in court, as provided in law.

It is another matter, however, for public officials to mount a sustained effort to weaken, to the point of dismantling, the commission. Which is the sense which many people have of what government members of Parliament have attempted since the IC’S clumsy handling, in early 2023, of a report of an investigation into whether Mr Holness influenced the award of contracts when he was education minister years earlier.

The commission sent to Parliament the report in which its director of investigation, who functions independently, recommended to the agency’s director of corruption prosecution, that Mr Holness be charged. But less than 24 hours later another report was tabled from the prosecutor, saying that there was no legal basis to charge the prime minister.

This led to claims of bias against the IC, which deepened when it disclosed in its annual report that six legislators were being investigated for illicit enrichment. Matters worsened last year after the commission’s investigator recommended further probes by other agencies into Mr Holness’ finances, after the IC failed to certify the prime minister’s income, assets and liabilities filings.

Mr Holness, as his right, is seeking a judicial review on the matter.

But government members, including some who faced criticisms from the IC, have engaged in an undermining campaign against the commission. In a parliamentary committee reviewing the law, some have also peddled amendments that would remove the commission’s independence and bring it under the direct control of politicians.

Attempts to procedurally slow down the tabling in Parliament of reports by the IC and the auditor general, as well as attacks on the latter for that office’s work, have added to the sense of a retreat from transparency.

The reset should be now.

The opinions on this page, except for The Editorial, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Gleaner.