CONTRACTOR General Greg Christie is concerned that a number of provisions in the proposed Whistle-blower legislation, which relate to his office, might be in conflict with the Contractor General's Act.

Under the Whistle-blower Bill, formally called the Protected Disclosures Act, and which is now before a Joint Select Committee of Parliament, the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) is listed as one of the prescribed persons to whom persons can make disclosures for action to be taken.

But yesterday, in a written submission to the Committee, Christie said the OCG was uneasy that certain provisions of the Bill, such as Section 17 — which imposes certain obligations on persons to investigate and report to specified individuals — might very well conflict with several provisions of the Contractor General's Act and called for this to be addressed.

Christie said the concern was particular to Section five of the Contractor General's Act, which states that the contractor general should not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority, as well as Section 16, which says he can investigate on his own initiative or as a result of representations made to him if, in his opinion, the investigation is warranted.

The contractor general also pointed out that the OCG had already established its own internal policy and procedures that are sufficient to address the particular disclosures which are being contemplated under the Bill.

Opposition committee member Phillip Paulwell and Government member Senator Warren Newby urged that a way be found to preserve the powers of the contractor general, as is, without setting out another layer of responsibilities for it under the Whistle-blower Bill.

"We have to clearly state that. We don't want to have a situation where there is a conflict of the laws," Paulwell noted.

Attorney General and Justice Minister Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, who chaired the committee, agreed and instructed the technical team assisting the joint select body to find a way to address the conflict between the statutes without usurping the powers held by the OCG.

In the meantime, concerns have been raised that the penalties set out under the Bill are too mild as whistle-blowers face not only occupational detriment, but physical violence. As such, the committee has been asked to consider making provisions that if the judge is satisfied that assault or actual harm has been done to a whistle-blower — either as revenge or intimidation — the prison sentence to be imposed should be double what would normally be imposed under the Offences Against the Person Act.

In addition, where the whistle-blower has been murdered, it is being suggested that the convicted offender should face either the death penalty or a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Under the proposed Bill a person who discourages, prevents, restrains, intimidates or restricts an employee from making a disclosure upon conviction can be fined up to $2 million or two years' imprisonment, or both, or a fine and imprisonment for five years.

The Whistle-blower Bill is aimed at protecting workers who squeal on corrupt practices in their workplaces. It is intended to cover all forms of misconduct within an organisation and incidents of gross mismanagement, past or present.

Persons and institutions to whom disclosures may be made by individuals in possession of critical information include the auditor general, the Bank of Jamaica, the Bureau of Standards, the Children's Advocate, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, the commissioner of police, the contractor general, the director of public prosecutions, the political ombudsman and the public defender, among others.

  7 comments

  7 comments

  0 comments

  7 comments

  0 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  2 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments