KINGSTON, Jamaica – Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) says it does not support any calls for the resignation of any member of the Integrity Commission unless there are clear acts of impropriety.

The human rights lobby group was referring to calls by Government senators for the resignation of members of the Integrity Commission over the handling of a probe of allegations of conflict of interest involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness.

In the release on Tuesday, the JFJ noted that while the Integrity Commission is not “infallible” and there may be “differences” of opinion around the commission’s interpretation of the law, it urged caution in the criticism of the Commission, its commissioners, and its officers.

“We believe that unwarranted attacks, using the language of ‘malice’ to suggest ill-intent are dangerous and undermine the integrity of the commission; besmirches, without evidence, the reputation of the commissioners;

and may cause undue loss of trust in the institution and put the lives and safety of its officers at stake,” the release said.

JFJ also urged people to be cautious in their criticisms and believes that the imbroglio further highlights the importance of the removal of section 53(3) of the Integrity Commission Act, commonly referred to as the gag clause.

” We note, the Commissioners, via a press release, indicated that it is their opinion that the Ruling of the Director of Corruption Prosecution in a matter where a report has been sent to Parliament, and cannot be communicated to anyone before the report has been tabled by virtue of Section 53(3) of the Integrity Commission Act. “

“It seems the gag clause may have unwittingly tied the commissioner’s hand in dealing with this matter. It must be said that while there may be differences of opinion on the Integrity Commission’s understanding and application of the gag clause, one cannot reasonably expect the commission to act on political expediency or pragmatism, rather than following the law as they understood it.”

“Without an investigation, statements being made in the public are mere conjecture without a whiff of logical basis for insinuating a political or nefarious motive to the Integrity Commission,” JFJ said.

“We urge that the parliament, via its oversight committee, request a meeting with the Integrity Commission’s leadership where an opportunity is provided for its questions to be answered. Anything less may be construed as

political maneuvering that may result in undermining the integrity of the commission.”

“We note that the subject of the report, one of whom is the Most Honourable Prime Minister, has since made utterances that the Integrity Commission Act will need review.”

JFJ stated that the review of the legislation is already before a Joint Select Committee and trust the prime minister’s statement was not an indication of any possible weakening of the Integrity Commission’s powers but a clear opportunity to remove the gag clause.