THE Jamaica Civil Service Association (JCSA) on Friday spoke out against the Integrity Commission for its submission of a report to Parliament on Tuesday in which it referred Prime Minister Andrew Holness for corruption prosecution review over a possible conflict of interest in the award of multimillion-dollar contracts to a company to whose principal he has an associate.

The JCSA is insisting that a gag order be placed on reports that are subject to prosecutorial review.

Since the tabling of the report in Parliament on Tuesday it has been revealed that the commission’s director of corruption prosecution, Keisha Prince-Kameka, had already ruled from January 12 that there was insufficient grounds on which to proceed with prosecution in the allegations against the prime minister. In the letter addressed to the president of the Senate and speaker of the House of Representatives, Prince-Kameka made a similar ruling on the National Works Agency, the education ministry, and the Social Development Commission, which were also referred to her in the report.

“The existence of a report naming public officials in acts of corruption not only damages the individual but also the institution of government when the completion of the process leading to the laying of charges is incomplete or when a report is shared publicly in a preliminary fashion when the matter was not previously in the public domain,” president of the JCSA Oneil Grant said in a statement.

The Greg Christie-headed commission has been strident in its insistence that Section 53 (3), or the so-called gag clause, in the Integrity Commission Act should be removed to allow the commission to announce and comment on ongoing investigations.

The commission’s position, repeatedly outlined to its parliamentary oversight committee, is that a gag clause is not imposed on other law enforcement agencies in Jamaica. The commissioners have argued in a position statement to the committee that “the gag should be cause for significant public alarm and concern” as it is detrimental to the public interest and the public good. Considering that Jamaica is perceived to be highly corrupt, the ‘gag’ only serves to further undermine public confidence and trust in the country’s institutions and leaders.

Section 53 (3) of the Act forbids the commission from making any public statement on matters under investigation until a report is tabled in Parliament.

In the meantime, the JCSA is further cautioning against naming public officials in alleged acts of corruption, pointing to the 2014 joint select committee by the commission’s director of investigations, who he said had issued similar caution that: “The investigations and procedures of the Integrity Commission and all its agents are to be highly confidential as any indication of corruption will impair the reputation of any accused individual. It is our considered opinion that Section 52(5) is irrelevant to the work of the investigator [because] if the accused individual was found by way of investigation to not be involved in any corrupt activity then there is no need to make any public declaration regarding culpability — unless the matter was already public, then such a declaration is necessary.”

Grant argued that allegations of corruption against public officials require a high level of sensitivity and deeper probity to avoid situations like the Integrity Commission report which has just been put on international display, further deepening the perception of corruption, “and making it appear that the institution created to deal with the investigation and prosecution of corruption is inept”.At the same time he stressed that the JCSA was resolute in its support of the fight to stamp out corruption in all its forms.