Selective outrage undermines true accountability
Published:Saturday | January 31, 2026 | 12:07 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Jamaica faces a growing credibility problem in how we respond to wrongdoing; we condemn selectively. Principle is often replaced by convenience, and outrage seems guided more by affiliation than by facts. That approach weakens public trust and undermines genuine accountability.
The recent Auditor General’s Report raises serious governance concerns. It cites numerous contracts reportedly awarded outside established procurement procedures and the questionable use of The University Hospital of the West Indies tax-exemption instrument that benefited four private companies. These findings point to potential systemic failures, not isolated incidents.
Yet the national conversation tells a different story. Public criticism has been sharply focused on one entity, while the broader pattern suggested by the report receives far less attention. This imbalance fuels the perception that accountability in Jamaica depends less on standards and more on who is connected to whom.
Procurement rules, oversight systems, and internal controls exist to safeguard public resources. When those safeguards appear to fail, responsibility cannot be narrowed to a single external beneficiary. Governance structures include management, compliance officers, and boards of directors, all tasked with ensuring procedures are followed. If irregularities occurred, the questions must extend to institutional decision-making: Who approved the actions? What checks were in place? Were established policies followed? Where was oversight?
Equally concerning is the role of public discourse. When commentary from media personalities or online platforms appears politically aligned rather than principle-driven, it contributes to a culture where corruption is debated as a team sport instead of addressed as a national issue. Integrity cannot be conditional. It loses meaning when applied selectively.
If multiple entities benefited from questionable processes, then scrutiny must be consistent. If procurement guidelines were bypassed, then the entire system that enabled this must be examined, not just the most politically convenient piece.
Accountability is not political warfare; it is a requirement for good governance. Public confidence depends on the belief that rules apply evenly, regardless of influence or affiliation.
Jamaica cannot effectively confront corruption while appearing to shield parts of it. Consistent standards, impartial investigation, and balanced reporting are essential, not optional. Anything less risks turning accountability into performance rather than practice.
DENTON SMITH