Libel committee sheds little light on accountability

Byron Buckley, Associate Editor - Special Projects

ALTHOUGH PARLIAMENTARIANS deserve commendation for pro-posing several reforms to Jamaica's libel and defamation laws, they should be pooh-poohed for attempting to leave intact the status quo of anti-transparency and lack of accountability.

Based on the recommendations of a joint select committee of Parliament chaired by Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne, legislators seemingly believe that public officials should enjoy the same protection as other persons from damaging statements. The committee, in its December 2010 report to the Houses of Parliament, opted "to make no change to the law, as the defence of reasonable journalism established in the Reynolds case, and clarified and applied in later cases, is adequate".

In contrast, the media fraternity is advocating that, in the interest of promoting accountability and trans-parency, public officials' only defence against libel should be to prove that the media entity acted maliciously - the Sullivan principle.

Alternatively, the media suggest that public officials - in bringing a libel suit - must prove that an alleged defamatory statement was false. In other words, if the report was true, media insist they should not be penalised for publishing it despite the discomfort the publication may have caused a public official. Media stakeholders argue that a different burden of proof for public officials is in keeping with one of the mandates of the Small Committee viz, "to impose appropriate burdens of accountability on public officials holding positions of trust".

By recommending the Reynolds principle of reasonable journalism, members of the joint select committee are clearly of the view that public officials should enjoy the rights of ordinary people, including equality before the law.

Power and privilege

But are parliamentarians equal to us in terms of power and privilege? Of course not! The clearest indication of their privileged position is that utterances by parliamentarians in Gordon House are protected from charges of defamation.

The people grant parliamentarians this absolute privilege because they want them to be unfettered in deliberating and debating the nation's business. Therefore, it seems a reasonable exchange if the people are allowed some latitude in commenting or reporting on our legislators' performance of their public duties.

So the law already treats a group of public officials - parlia-mentarians - differently. Other manifestations of special treatment of public officials include the Corruption Prevention Act and the Integrity Act, which both require accountability from groups of public officials. Since there is already legislative precedent requiring special scrutiny of public officials in carrying out their duties and responsibilities, it appears inconsistent for parliamentarians to be objecting to greater scrutiny by the media.

Greater scrutiny can only serve to prevent the most unscrupulous and corrupt among us from entering the domain of the public service. This will be a missed opportunity by parliamentarians to publicly demonstrate their commitment to good and transparent governance.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding has the opportunity to change the anti-transparency status quo of the proposed libel reform during debate on the committee's report in the full House. This would be in keeping with the terms of reference he gave the Justice Hugh Small-led committee that produced the report that the parliamentary committee reviewed.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and byron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.