The more perceptive readers who regularly follow this space would have discerned that we are kindly disposed to the chairman/spokesperson of the Economic Programme Oversight Committee (EPOC), Mr Richard Byles.

After all, he is putting himself on the line in taking on the onerous task of leading the team that monitors Jamaica’s performance under the critical Extended Fund Facility pact with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Moreover, Mr Byles, as head of Sagicor, has demonstrated confidence in this country by putting his money where his mouth is, in respect of investments. We suspect that this is what gives him the credibility to be asked to chair EPOC.

It is precisely that credibility that we would like to see protected and preserved so that the Jamaican public can continue to have faith in the EPOC chairman and his utterances.

Mr Byles was recently heard to suggest in a radio interview that people who have misgivings about the Government’s transfer pricing law are people who are in breach or likely to be in breach of it. This is unbecoming of the EPOC chairman.

Indeed, the transfer pricing law is at best a work in progress, and it is clear that many people know very little about its arrangements and implications. The rules governing this legislation are yet to be clearly spelt out.

How, therefore, could it be said that those who are in breach are the ones who have concerns about it. At what point does someone breach a law that not even the framers seem to be aware of what it truly entails?

The IMF is railroading the Government and the finance ministry into implementing a law that is bound to hurt the economy and the country by driving away investments from Jamaica, in seeking to squeeze more taxes out of companies doing business with related parties, mostly overseas.

Since the rules and regulations are not yet clearly defined, the drafting and finalising of the Advanced Pricing Agreements are yet to commence. It is a real gamble and leads to a discretion, which unfortunately can be based on likes and dislikes. More time is needed to sort this out, as well as for dialogue with the tax authorities.

In addition, as we have pointed out before, the law is unconstitutional because it proposes to retroactively fine or imprison persons deemed to be in breach of regulations which were not in place at the time of the alleged infringement.

It is quite possible that Mr Byles knows something that the rest of the business community does not and so he appears quite comfortable with assurances given by Dr Peter Phillips, the finance minister, that no prosecutions would be made under the law before 2017.

We wish we could be as comfortable as Mr Byles seems to be in taking the word of a politician who could change his mind at any time, especially if someone runs afoul of him and his Administration.

We note also that Mr Byles has a growing tendency to be talking up the economy in a way that should be left to the governing politicians, and for which he has already drawn the ire of the Opposition.

As EPOC chairman, he needs to stick to the facts and figures and leave the editorialising for the columnists, the talk show hosts and the public relations operatives. Like Caesar’s wife, Mr Byles must be above suspicion.