EDITORIAL - Natural justice and the SLB

Persons who are charged with the management of public resources are expected to execute their responsibilities with efficiency and integrity and should expect to be held responsible for their performance.

If they prove to be incompetent and/or corrupt, they must bear the consequences, including, if required, prosecution in a court of law.

This newspaper, therefore, has no problem with the Golding administration, and in particular the finance minister, Mr Audley Shaw, aggressively attempting to identify poor management and the misuse of state resources in public bodies, and disengaging officials where such misbehaviour is found.

Indeed, not only do we congratulate any such effort, but insist that if and when corruption is discovered, the officials involved should be made to face the full force of the law.

But while we endorse the Government's and Mr Shaw's campaign, we must declare our belief in, and subscription to, the notion of natural justice. It is not right for people to be condemned without an opportunity to defend themselves. That would be antithetical to the ideals of a liberal democracy.

Uncomfortable

It is for that reason that we are uncomfortable with some of the administration's most recent approaches to the dismissal of public officials, including this week's firing of Lenice Barnett, the former executive director of the Students' Loan Bureau (SLB).

Ms Barnett's disengagement was triggered, according to the finance ministry, by the findings of an audit of the organisation, ordered by Mr Shaw and conducted by the ministry's Public Accountability and Inspectorate Division.

The report made damning accusations against Ms Barnett, including managerial incompetence and, on the face of it, financial improprieties. At least two board members, based on the findings, seem to be badly compromised.

Much of the report, or what of it has become public, critics might claim, is declarative, rather than being rigorously argued. That, however, is not our primary concern.

Rather, it is the fact that nowhere in it is there a reference to a challenge to any matter of fact, or any exculpatory evidence and/or argument that might have been ordered by Ms Barnett. And nor, apparently, did she have an opportunity to defend herself after its completion, but before her dismissal.

Defending itself

In seeking to defend itself against accusations that Ms Barnett is being penalised for talking out of turn about the likely higher education fees for students, the finance ministry disclosed that the report was commissioned before those comments and delivered to Mr Shaw on July 26. He left the island the same day and returned on Sunday.

Tuesday, the ministry said, was the first time Mr Shaw had an opportunity to attend to the report, which was to instruct the chairman of the SLB board to fire Ms Barnett.

This approach carries echoes of the recent firing of Dr Ruth Potopsingh, the former managing director of Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, who complained about a lack of opportunity to defend herself and gained the sympathy of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee for the failure of natural justice.

In democracies, gallows are not constructed before the case is heard - even when the case may appear overwhelmingly against the accused.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.