WE have been observing with interest the arguments presented on both sides of the debate between parliamentarians and members of the Integrity Commission over a so-called gag clause in the Act governing the operations of the commission.

The clause — Section 53(3) — prohibits the commission from making public statements about the initiation or conduct of any investigation until a report is tabled in Parliament.

Members of the commission are arguing that the clause stands as an impediment to good governance as transparency is important to gaining public confidence in its operations.

Indeed, Mr Gregg Christie, the executive director of the Integrity Commission, has repeatedly stressed that what the commission wants is the ability to announce that it has launched an investigation, not to provide details to the public.

However, legislators on both sides of the House have posited that announcing investigations can tarnish people’s reputation, and have reminded the commission that Section 36 (3) of the Act gives it authority to submit, at any time, a report relating to any particular matter which, in the opinion of the commission, requires the special attention of the Parliament.

In fact, during last week’s review of the Act, Mr Julian Robinson, the Member of Parliament (MP) for St Andrew South Eastern, suggested that the commission “utilise that mechanism to keep the public updated about what it is doing without violating the principles of potentially tarnishing reputations which is more easily done when you are engaging with the media through release or interviews”.

We can’t find fault with Mr Robinson’s argument because we have seen in the past — particularly during the time when Mr Christie was contractor general — where the mere announcement of an investigation led to aspersions being cast about the integrity of the subject or subjects of his probe.

The big problem is that after the investigation, if individuals are found not to be in breach of any law or regulation governing conduct, the stain remains and they are viewed with suspicion going forward. No innocent person deserves to have that cloud hanging over them.

We share Mr Robinson’s view that the completion and successful prosecution of people involved in criminality and corruption, particularly the big players, will do more to generate public confidence in the Integrity Commission than the mere announcement that it is about to open an investigation.

Gathering evidence through meticulous investigation before making arrests is, unfortunately, not a strategy utilised with regularity by law enforcement entities in Jamaica. In fact, the only entity that comes easily to mind that exercises due care and diligence by investigating before going public is the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency.

The standard, we hold, should be that when law enforcement agencies finally make an arrest their case must be airtight.

Some investigations may take a long time, as in the case of that on Mr JC Hutchinson, the MP for St Elizabeth North Western, which began four yeas ago and was tabled in Parliament last Wednesday. Others may run for shorter periods.

What is important, though, is that when the process is completed only those who deserve to be prosecuted should be the ones to suffer.