The latest brouhaha between the Integrity Commission and the Government is not only unfortunate, it holds the potential to undermine confidence in an institution that is vital to the preservation of our democracy.

Readers will recall that in March 2022 the commission tabled its 2017 special investigative report which concluded that two former ministers of national security — Messrs Peter Bunting of the People’s National Party and Robert Montague of the Jamaica Labour Party — acted improperly in approving the award of gun licences to individuals of “questionable character”.

Both men have consistently insisted that they did nothing wrong and that they acted in accordance with the law.

Last week, the commission tabled an addendum to that 2017 report in which it vindicated Mr Bunting. However, in Mr Montague’s case, the commission said it had no reason to disturb the report.

It was therefore not surprising that Mr Montague accused the commission of bias, pointing out that it has not reviewed its decision in his case, despite a statement issued by him, but did the opposite in relation to Mr Bunting, who had also issued a statement.

Of course, Mr Bunting, who had previously criticised the commission, saying that it had deliberately omitted from its report the fact that he was acting in accordance with the recommendations of the review board, has now withdrawn that denunciation.

We note also that his leader, Mr Mark Golding had come to his defence, saying that the commission “[does] not always put all the relevant facts in the report and that can cause unfairness and injustice to persons who are being reviewed”.

Then we saw the big verbal joust between the commission and ministers Marlene Malahoo Forte, Delroy Chuck, and Robert Morgan, in which the entity forcefully told them that it “will not be frightened or intimidated to act in any way that is contrary to the public interest, nor will it subject itself to the undue influence or desires of any person, official, or authority while discharging its lawful functions under the law”.

All sides in this conflict need to calm down, take a step back, and examine themselves. No individual or entity is above criticism. What is important is for complaints to be addressed and, where there is error, amends are made.

The commission, in particular, needs to be careful as it is still trying to recover from its extremely poor handling of its investigation report on a conflict of interest issue involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness earlier this year.

It should also be mindful that the tone of its communication with the public does not unwittingly convey a perception that it has an unconscious bias in making decisions.

At the heart of any decision-making process by any entity that has great power that can either affect the liberty of someone or, more importantly, people’s reputation, must be fairness. If the commission is perceived to be operating counter to that ideal, it will not be effective.

Ms Paula Llewellyn, our eminent director of public prosecutions, has consistently reminded that, “Your reputation is your greatest non-depreciating asset.”

That is a message worthy of note at all times.