Of dilemmas and what to do

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The ongoing public furore over the Integrity Commission’s handling of the publication of the report on the investigation of the prime minister has led me to revisit my position on the ‘gag’ clause in the act that governs how the commission functions.

Like many, I was against this provision in the act; I now recognise the practical need for it, because of the public angst resulting from this situation.

There is general consensus that the reputation of the prime minister (and the country) has been damaged by the manner in which this matter was handled. And any logical examination would lead most to conclude that had the existence of this investigation become public knowledge, there would have been similar reputational damage even before the facts were established.

This reality, in my view, justifies the retention of some form of the gag clause.

However, the existence of any gag clause presents an important issue that the law, as is, does not address. The dilemma we face is that a public official cannot properly carry out the functions of the office while a matter arising from an investigation remains unresolved, simply because of what the public’s reaction and perception may be of the public official. So, what to do if, for example someone holding a high office, such as a senior civil servant, a member of the judiciary, a senior member of the military or police, or a member of the political directorate, becomes the subject of an investigation?

I will leave it to others more qualified and experienced in these matters to suggest solutions to this question. However, in my view, any future review of this very important piece of legislation must include clear procedures on dealing with this issue.

ALWYN K. GREGORY