Wise, old Jamaicans handed down a very succinct saying: “Thief no like see thief with long bag.” This comes to mind every time we see manifestation of the apparently irrational fear politicians have of each other.

After seeming to agree that the Office of the Political Ombudsman could fit very well within the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), the Opposition has backed off at the last moment, with an excuse that betrays its fear of politicians on the Government side.

Of course, it is regrettable that the Government parliamentarians have given the Opposition a way out, by piloting the proposal only Tuesday this week, giving Mr Mark Golding and his team little time to dot i’s and cross t’s.

The Opposition leader complains thus: “We have not been sent a copy of this Bill; we are seeing it the first time it was tabled. I don’t know whether there are any errors… I don’t think this is ready. I don’t think it is a good idea. I cannot support it, the process is wrong… in principle. I think it is going down a dangerous route.”

This has been an issue that has been on the table since 2012 when the suggestion first reached Parliament, without any rancour. It was not implemented because an ombudsman was in office until 2022. That should have been enough time to sort out the details before local government polls now due by month end.

But to the larger point at issue, the People’s National Party (PNP) is contending that locating the political ombudsman within the ECJ risks “contaminating” the commission by potential charges of bias on its part, should it have to intervene in contentions between the two major political parties.

Notably, both Government and Opposition recognise the well-established integrity of the ECJ, pointing out that it has won international plaudits for transforming local politics from the brutish state in which it was.

Jamaicans who are old enough recall the bloodletting, bogus voting, ballot box stealing, open vote-buying, and the general mayhem that characterised elections between the late 1970s and early 2000s.

It would seem to us that there is no better place to situate the Office of the Political Ombudsman than in the ECJ, given that there is no issue about its well-established integrity.

We are in agreement with Justice Minister Delroy Chuck that: “The independence of the Office of the Political Ombudsman would be strengthened as a result of the expansion of the commission from one individual to the ECJ.

“This approach will allow for a more fulsome examination of the matters brought to the Office of the Political Ombudsman, as matters will be scrutinised through the individual and collective lenses of the members of the ECJ, who are required to exercise fairness and who are bound by the Electoral Commission (Interim) Act to perform their functions within specified parameters.”

Moreover, the ECJ commissioners are said to be in full support of assuming the functions and, according to the minister, are “of the view that all commissioners should perform the functions of the political ombudsman”.

The problem that the Opposition is projecting can be avoided if both parties did their best to prevent the usual breaches of the code of political conduct, or show more respect for the findings of the political ombudsman.