THREE weeks ago we urged the combatants in the conflict between the Integrity Commission and members of the political directorate to calm down, take a step back, and examine themselves.

Our appeal was grounded in the fact that the constant bickering holds the potential to undermine confidence in an institution that is vital to the preservation of our democracy.

We also reminded that Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Ms Paula Llewellyn has consistently, and correctly, stated that a person’s reputation is their greatest non-depreciating asset. We were, therefore, not surprised when Ms Llewellyn — easily one of this country’s finest public servants ever — reiterated that position in an address to the Rotaract Club of Mandeville just over a week ago.

“I say to all entities that serve the public — like mine — that can adversely affect the reputation or the liberty of a citizen, that one must be wary of making utterances, or having this inscrutable silence, or operating in a way that may unwittingly give elements of the public the perception that there may be an unconscious bias,” Ms Llewellyn said.

“It seems to me that if you are careful of that then you will make sure, at the appropriate times, to put yourself in a position to make sure that transparency reigns. You cannot indict somebody on the basis of perception or suspicion… There must be an evidential basis to make an adverse decision — whether at the administrative level or at the criminal level,” the DPP said, adding that people’s reputation should not be “sullied”, in particular via social media.

That is sound advice, especially coming after the Integrity Commission’s abysmal handling of its investigation report on a conflict of interest issue involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness earlier this year which was worsened by the social media activity of its executive director.

We had also stated that the commission needs to be careful as it is still trying to recover from that incident, and its subsequent spat with Mr Peter Bunting — which it eventually resolved — and Mr Robert Montague has not moved the needle of public confidence in its favour.

Therefore, last week, after the commission announced that it had sent six reports to Parliament to be tabled, then asked that one of the reports be returned — we assume on the basis that there was need for an amendment — came across as a little messy and, unfortunately, could have fuelled further distrust.

That, we hold, is not good for the commission in the current environment. However, we all must acknowledge the fact that it is human to err and, when last we checked, the members of the Integrity Commission are human.

What the commission needs to ensure, though, is that it does not open itself up to doubt, as it had, we expect, enough time to check and recheck the reports before sending them to Parliament last week.

We can’t overstate the importance of the Integrity Commission. As such, we all need to ensure that it is nurtured and strengthened, even as we maintain that it is not above criticism.

Mr Justice Seymour Panton, who chairs the commission, has already made it clear that the agency has no agenda other than the discharge of the duties placed on it by the law, without fear or favour.

We have no reason to doubt him.