Two events have occurred within the last few days that have reinforced my conviction that Jamaica needs a single anti-corruption agency with powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution if the National Integrity Action Forum (NIAF) is to achieve a critical foundational objective and if our people are to attain more meaningful results in the combat of corruption.

In relation to the NIAF objectives, at the launch on January 28, 2009, at which Prime Minister Golding was keynote speaker and at which Mr Peter Bunting, MP, endorsed the NIAF on behalf of the leader of the opposition, I emphasised one central conclusion of the Jamaica Corruption Assessment Report 2008 (of which I was co-author), which framed the establishment of the NIAF:

"The 'continued success or failure' of the struggle against corruption... depends on the vigour with which the country's system of justice can investigate, arraign, prosecute and convict key 'big fish' accused of corruption."

Helping to identify and eliminate impediments to the successful pursuit of this goal has been one of our central goals.

This objective relates to the growing concern of our people with the incidence of corruption, a concern reflected in the 2008 survey results which revealed that Jamaicans regarded corruption as the second thing most wrong with Jamaica, behind crime and violence. By September 2010, the Don Anderson Poll revealed that a majority of our people regarded corruption as that which is "most negative about Jamaica".

Despite this growing sense of urgency, and despite the fact that over 85 per cent of our people believe that some politicians are connected to criminal elements ('Changing Attitudes to Corruption', Jamaica Gleaner, April 14, 2010) there has been no recent prosecution nor conviction of any 'big fish' accused of corruption. To rectify this deficiency, two recent events dramatise for me one reason why we continue to lag so far behind while other countries forge ahead and reconfirm the need for a single anti-corruption agency -- one which would merge the Corruption Prevention Commission, the Parliament Integrity of Members Commission and the Office of the Contractor General (earlier advocated by the OCG) -- to focus exclusively on the investigation and prosecution of the corrupt, particularly in high places.

The first event relates to the January 9, 2011 Sunday Gleaner report of the previous Friday's opening of the Hilary session of the Home Circuit Court. The report states in part:

"There are 452 cases for trial during this term, which ends on April 15. The previous term, which began in September last year and ended in December had 487 cases listed for trial. A total of 65 cases were disposed of during the term and 422 were traversed to this term. Thirty new cases were added to the traversed list, making a total of 452. There are 296 murder cases and 94 sexual offences on the list.

"[Justice] Smith pointed to some of the reasons for the state of the Court list. "There is an ever-increasing number of cases coming into the system," she said, adding that one could not just look at the mere number of cases... but one had to look at their complexity."

One also has to look, I might add, at the number of prosecutors on the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions -- 43 attorneys (see The Civil Service Establishment Act, The Civil Service Establishment (General) Order 2010) -- to handle the deluge of prosecutions at the Supreme Court level, largely relating to offences against the person and with little or no specialised training in corruption-related cases.

The second event which reinforced my conviction of the need to restructure our anti-corruption institutional framework comes out of the United States. It was the conviction and sentence to three years in prison (on January 10) for money laundering and conspiracy of Tom DeLay, the former House majority Leader under President George W Bush and one of the most prominent Republicans in the United States. This is but the latest in a list of federal politicians convicted of crimes related to corruption.

Under the George W Bush Presidency (2001 - 2008), there were five convictions from the Executive Branch (including Steven Griles, former deputy to the secretary of the interior) and eight from the Legislature Branch primarily related to corruption. Under the Clinton Presidency (1993 - 2000), there were two from the Executive (including Webster Hubbel, associate attorney general) and 12 from the Legislature. It was the DeLay conviction and sentence to prison on January 10 which drove home the reality that in so many jurisdictions outside of Jamaica 'big fish' are not above the law but are being prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

And 'big fish' are now being brought in in jurisdictions comparable to Jamaica. In Sierra Leone for example, former Fisheries and Marine Resources Minister Haja Hafsatu Kabbeh was found guilty in October 2010 on five counts of misappropriation of public funds. She was fined 30 million Leones for each of the five counts or concurrently run a three-year jail term for all five counts.

In March 2010, another cabinet minister, Sheku Tejan Kamara, who headed the health and sanitation ministry, was found guilty of awarding contracts to his cronies without opening them up to public tender. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment but avoided jail by paying the alternative fine of US$40,000.

These successes against previous 'untouchables' in Sierra Leone were a direct result of the fulfilment of a political commitment made by the newly elected president Ernest Koroma (in 2007) to strengthen Sierra Leone's Anti-Corruption Commission to give it powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution. According to Glenna Thompson, former director of investigations, intelligence and prosecutions of the Sierra Leone ACC:

"The commission before 2007 was nicknamed 'the toothless bulldog'. It would make a lot of publicity. It would make a lot of noise about people who had been arrested but then... nothing seemed to be happening because these cases would then tend to be stuck once sent to the Attorney General's Office for whatever reason, whether it was political or administrative." (Interview with Glenna Thompson, October 14, 2010).

This situation changed dramatically when after being elected in 2007 President Koroma fulfilled his pledge, the Constitution was amended and the relevant statute changed to give the ACC prosecutorial powers.

"...the Anti-Corruption Commission is a success story in Sierra Leone... the one department or the one government (agency) that comes out on top of others... is the Anti-Corruption Commission because the success rate is high." (Interview with Glenna Thompson, October 14, 2010).

To achieve success and to respond adequately to the concerns of the people of Sierra Leone, the authorities had to think outside of the box. So do we. Undoubtedly, much effort and some gains are being made in Jamaica's combat of corruption:

In 2009, a senior police officer was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison for corruption.

An MP and former junior minister is before the Court on corruption charges.

Between January and August 2010, almost 200 police officers were separated from the JCF or charged for corruption by the JCF Anti-Corruption Branch.

Over 100 civil servant declarants have been brought before the Courts at the instigation of the Corruption Prevention Commission and in December 2010, two cases were on trial before the Courts. (See letter to the editor, Jamaica Gleaner, December 20, 2010 by Justice Chester Orr, chairman, Commission for the Prevention of Corruption).

There is now 100 per cent compliance with the Contractor General Act regarding timely submission of Quarterly Contract Awards by public sector entities.

There is a Court and a judge in Kingston assigned to hear corruption cases.

The country's rating and ranking on the 2010 CPI has improved for the first time after three successive years of decline.

But there is consensus that these gains are far from adequate, that corruption in high places remains rampant and that anti-corruption institutions need to be reconfigured to achieve significant success.

Despite significant violations of the Parliament Integrity of Members Act, no MP has been convicted for offences under this statute.

No convictions have taken place for "illicit enrichment" under the Corruption Prevention Act.

Between March 2008 and December 31, 2009, "the OCG has made over 30 formal criminal offence referrals to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions". However, none of these referrals appear to have given rise to criminal charge, arrest and prosecution. (See the 23rd Annual Report of the Contractor General of Jamaica, January to December 2009, p.13).

Between January 1 and August 31, 2010, 55 files were sent by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the JCF to the DPP, 44 rulings were received, 24 of which recommended criminal prosecution, and nine convictions secured. No doubt corruption-related issues form a small part of the workload and responsibilities before the ODPP.

Against this background, a consensus has emerged that something must be done to make Jamaica's anti-corruption institutions more effective in the combat of corruption. Hitherto, one of the main institutional outcomes of this consensus is the Corruption (Special Prosecutor) Act now before the Parliament. "This Bill seeks to repeal the Corruption (Prevention) Act and the Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act and to provide for the establishment of the Office of Special Prosecutor for Corruption as a Special Commission of Parliament." (Bill, Memorandum of Objects and Reasons).

This legislation in effect merges two of the country's anti-corruption institutions and their functions into the new Special Prosecutor's Office. However, it omits the Office of the Contractor General, arguably the country's critical anti-corruption institution to the extent that corruption offences, especially by big fish in the public and private sectors, disproportionately relate to Jamaica's public procurement system and to the extent that it incorporates trained specialists in anti-corruption matters.

If we are to come to grips more effectively and urgently with the cancer of corruption eating away at Jamaica's system of governance, this deficiency must be repaired. A single anti-corruption agency, learning in particular from the Sierra Leone experience, needs to be established with powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution.

This position has attracted support from significant elements in the media, civil society, the private sector, the Parliamentary Opposition and the governing JLP, through the G2K. Prime Minister Golding himself has indicated, most recently at the NIAF Media Roundtable to celebrate International Anti-Corruption Day (December 9, 2010) that he has "an open mind" on the issue of establishing a single anti-corruption agency with prosecutorial teeth.

The proposed Special Prosecutor Act in its present form should not be allowed to close the issue. It should be "put on hold", either to facilitate amendments to approximate the single anti-corruption agency with prosecutorial powers or to allow for the draft of a new Bill to bring about this result. If we truly understand that corruption kills development, then combating corruption more effectively is a life and death matter for Jamaica, particularly for the poor who suffer most from continuing underdevelopment.

Of course, more effective combat cannot be accomplished by any single measure. This entails a range of actions on a broad front, including reducing bureaucratic red tape and establishing efficient administrative systems, making more effective codes of conduct governing public and private sector entities, raising levels of public awareness and engaging the 'grass roots' more directly in the combat of corruption, strengthening ethics as a component of the country's socialisation and educational infrastructure, improving co-operation among the country's anti-corruption institutions, upgrading support for anti-corruption programmes from international development partners, and reinforcing ties with the global anti-corruption community.

Amongst these steps to be taken, however, the establishment of the single anti-corruption agency is at this moment a most critical weapon to get at the 'big fish' whose continued 'untouchability' is crippling development, seriously undermining the rule of law and gravely damaging the legitimacy of authority in every sphere of life.

As we draw closer to this year's National Prayer Breakfast, let us take to heart and act more decisively on the words of Rev Dr Roderick Hewitt at the National Prayer Breakfast held on January 15, 2009:

"If we are to curb corruption in Jamaica, tough and enforceable laws are needed as a fist step. Ordinary people must begin to see more corrupt officials being held accountable to be fully punished by the judiciary process. The rich and politically powerful must not be allowed to buy their way out of accountability! Secondly, we need to treat the drive against corruption as a major campaign on the same scale as if we were fighting a deadly infectious disease. Thirdly, we need an intense campaign to educate the general population to recognise corruption as a destructive force aimed at the moral foundations of our nation."

Professor Trevor Munroe is the director of the National Integrity Action Forum, and Visiting Fellow at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social & Economic Studies, UWI.

  0 comments

  0 comments

  11 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  23 comments

  0 comments

  2 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  1 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  1 comments

  15 comments

  4 comments