One of the issues which countries and organisations continue to debate is how the written and unwritten standards of leadership are to be applied when there is apparent leadership failure, for example when a head of government or chief executive faces exposure for apparent or suspected wrongdoing.

In some countries the conventions are clear. If a government minister is plausibly accused of an ethics violation or misdeed bordering on illegality, his or her resignation is almost instantaneous. Among the examples from the UK are Priti Patel, who resigned after being accused of bullying civil servants. Then there was the case of David Blunkett, who resigned for breaching the ministerial code of conduct over paid work he took. There were several other cases, including the famous (or infamous) partygate scandal at No 10 Downing Street.

To whom much is given

The biblical and ethical principle which states that to whom much is given is more required remains a sacred leadership standard. People who make the rules and laws must be first and most exemplary. This way of leading is the chief means by which leaders can appeal to the consciences of those they lead. If the standard is right, leaders must show its rightness by acting according to what is asserted.

The ethical theory of deontology sets out the claims or bases on which leaders are called upon to act in keeping with what they expect of followers. Deontology has two footings: The first is that one must act in such a way that one’s action can become a universal norm. In this regard, the issue a leader must consider when determining whether to pursue a course of action, or evaluating the appropriateness of an action taken, is whether that action would still be okay if everyone did it. The second footing of deontology is the dictum that leaders should always treat people as ends, and not means to an end. This dictum suggests that leaders serve those they lead and not the other way around. It is for this reason that leaders are expected to step aside when it is found that, in the conduct of their official duties, they failed in substantive ways by placing their interests ahead of the people they serve.

Corruption probe of Jamaica’s Prime Minister

The Corruption Investigation Unit of Jamaica’s chief anti-corruption state agency, the Integrity Commission, had referred the Prime Minister Andrew Holness for possible prosecution. This information was revealed in a report that was tabled in Parliament. This referral is an historic development in Jamaica. The investigation had been in relation to government contracts for works done in the constituency Holness represents and dates back about a decade and a half ago when he was minister of education. Holness, in a statement issued by his minister of information, sought to downplay the gravity of the referral, stating, among other things, that the issues occurred years ago, and other Members of Parliament have done some of the same things of which he was accused. This latter assertion is an admission that he did some of the things alleged. Arguing that others have done it neither justifies nor minimises the wrongness of the action.

This latest and significant development is occurring when several other questions and issues remain unanswered and unresolved concerning how Holness has conducted himself in his public life. These include that:

(1) Holness’s 2021 statement of assets and liabilities (integrity declarations) filed, in keeping with the requirements of the law, with the Integrity Commission, remain uncertified several months since being filed. Non-certification can imply that the commission has questions/queries that have not yet been satisfactorily addressed.

(2) Holness has not responded to an invitation of the Integrity Commission to sign the Leaders’ Integrity Code of Conduct. This code was prepared by the commission and is intended to guide the conduct of the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition in their public duties. The leader of the Opposition and some members of his party have signed the Code. Holness has not.

(3) On a previous occasion, Holness submitted his integrity declarations late, in violation of statute.

(4) Property taxes for at least some of the properties owned by Holness, then leader of the Opposition, remain unpaid for several months and were not paid until after an investigative reporter had made the revelations of these unpaid obligations.

(5) Several Cabinet ministers of the Holness Administration who have been found culpable in corruption probes by the Integrity Commission remain in office, and one, who resigned, is facing criminal prosecution for massive fraud, though questions may be legitimately asked about whether the prime minister was, prior to the resignation of that minister, unaware of his actions.

Troubling questions remain unanswered. The day following the tabling of the report of the corruption investigation, a report from the Corruption Prosecution Unit (which is independent of the Corruption Investigation Unit) was tabled and indicated that no criminal prosecution would be undertaken against the prime minister. Opinions are split concerning whether the report of the Corruption Investigation Unit should have been tabled considering the finding of the Corruption Prosecution Unit that no criminal action be pursued against Holness. The Integrity Commission, in a statement, responding to the public discussion has sought to clarify that, under the law, it was obliged to table both reports, and it could not have tabled a report on the conclusion of the matter — the decision not to prosecute — before tabling the report of the investigation (with the recommendation to prosecute based on the findings).

The question may well be raised whether both reports ought to have been published at the same time and, in my view, they should have been.

The fact that the Corruption Prosecution Unit had determined that the evidence was not strong enough to warrant the laying the criminal charges ought not to be seen as good news for a prime minister, who is expected to be a model when it comes to the highest standards of ethics and probity. The fact that the director of corruption prosecution has decided not to proceed with criminal charges is not an elevated or elevating outcome for the prime minister. It is a mere escape, and what the director of criminal prosecution has ruled reflects an opinion which differs from that of an equally competent ‘judge’ of the facts, who found that prosecution was warranted.

The painful and ugly picture with which Jamaica is left, and which stands before the world, is that its prime minister was referred for possible criminal prosecution by the country’s leading anti-corruption body, but escaped prosecution. This is not a pretty picture.

On several previous occasions I have advanced evidence which I have argued makes the case that Holness is unfit to continue as prime minister. This latest development, notwithstanding the decision not to prosecute, strengthens my view. The examples from the UK, cited at the beginning of this article, stand as a guide.

When a prime minister escapes prosecution in a corruption probe, the escape is cause for rejoicing only when standards of leadership are set against the lowest levels. That this is the case in some sections of the Jamaican population and it is truly unfortunate.

Professor Canute Thompson is former chair of the People’s National Party’s Policy Commission, as well as a senior lecturer in educational policy, planning, and leadership at The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is also author of several books and articles on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or canutethompson1@gmail.com.