MR Greg Christie, the contractor general, regrettably interprets his “discretionary statutory powers” to put himself beyond the pale of even the most well-intentioned suggestions on how he carries out his “deliberate and standard operating procedures”.

No public office, including that of the Governor-General of Jamaica and the Prime Minister of Jamaica, is above accountability, not even that of the Contractor General of Jamaica. To believe that every constructive criticism or suggestion as to how one can improve the exercise of one’s duties is an attempt to “instruct”, is indeed foolhardy.

Of course, it is our strong belief that Mr Christie enjoys overwhelming support among Jamaicans who are fed up with corruption, and we are prominent among those who believe he has been good for Jamaica. In fact, in times past we have offered him the support of these pages in the fight against graft and the wellknown political trough, which he has politely turned down.

Indeed, it seems that Mr Christie, knowing how desperately fed up Jamaicans are with corruption, is skilfully using that to head off any criticism of the way he handles his job. It has become his beating stick for anybody who dares to question his shortcomings. So any criticism of Mr Christie is immediately construed as being against his attempts to fight corruption. This is utter nonsense and terribly simplistic.

We are, none of us, above reproach, and it is not every action that a man takes that means intent to be corrupt. Mr Christie himself has been accused of and taken before the court by three dismissed members of his staff for alleged “abuse of his office” and for allegedly denying them “the right to a fair hearing and a chance to defend themselves against accusations of a breach of their contracts”. This was related to the 2009 incident when alleged corruption took place right under his very nose.

Mr Christie is a British-trained lawyer heading up a team of people with 17 university degrees, as he himself brags. Therefore, he understands that what we are advising is not unreasonable. He must, in his news releases, seek to protect the reputation of people being investigated, until he has incontrovertible evidence of their wrongdoing. Sometimes all a man or woman has is his/her reputation.

He naively equates the operation of his office with the publication of a newspaper. By their very nature these two entities bear very little resemblance. In any event, a newspaper risks being sued for libel if it tarnishes the reputation of an individual. The contractor general is not so restricted in his report to the Parliament.

In all good faith, we again commend to him the absolute wisdom of Ms Helen Garlick, the well-respected British barrister who heads the special investigation into the activities of the former Government of the Turks and Caicos:

“I am aware that some sections of the media have expressed disappointment and frustration that when the Special Investigation and Prosecution Team (SIPT) takes operational steps it is issuing only very limited information by way of press releases.”

Moreover, she explains that the most important duties of anyone conducting a major criminal investigation are to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation and to protect the rights of suspects to their privacy, and to a fair trial in the event they are charged.

This is all we are asking of Mr Christie.