The Government on Tuesday used its majority in the House of Representatives to push through amendments to the Political Ombudsman (Interim) Act, 2024, paving the way for the commissioners of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) to take on that adjudicative role.

But the Opposition reiterated its objection to the Bill and described the Government’s move as “disgraceful”, saying it had neglected to discuss the matter to arrive at a consensus on the way forward.

The development came as both the ruling Jamaica Labour Party and the Opposition People’s National Party traded charges of politically-motivated misdeeds in a violent incident in Trinityville, St Thomas, that has gone viral on social media.

The debate on the Bill picked up right where it had left off when it was suspended last week following the Opposition’s call for a divide. Tuesday’s vote resulted in 21 members saying yes to the Bill’s passage; while seven said no.

Before the vote, Justice Minister Delroy Chuck gave a statement reiterating the Government’s stance on the matter and claimed that the Opposition had always been in favour of the move. He also said that there had been consultation between the two parties.

Chuck came to the House armed with a letter written by chairman of the Political Ombudsman Commission, then Speaker of the House of Representatives Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, which recommended that the Office of the Political Ombudsman be subsumed under the ECJ.

He said that the letter, which was drafted to the prime minister and to the leader of the opposition, dated November 4, 2022, was e-mailed to all members of the committee which included Opposition members, and she had asked for their feedback

Part of the letter, which he read out stated: “This commission notes that in the process of examining the status of the Office of the Political Ombudsman, the Parliament may wish to consider a move to have the Office of the Political Ombudsman subsumed by the ECJ, as the mandate of the two commissions and their roles in our society have proven to be complementary.

“This is buttressed by the fact that the Electoral Commission is continuously active, whereas the Office of the Political Ombudsman is most active during election periods which occur generally, every four or five years,” the letter stated. It also said that the bringing together of these two commissions of Parliament would be a significant cost-saving measure for the State.

Chuck pointed out that on November 10, 2022, Opposition Senator Peter Bunting provided his response to the letter, stating that he had no objection to the proposal and urged the executive to speedily consider the recommendations of the committee so that there will not be a protracted period between the departure of the ombudsman and the successor arrangement.

Chuck argued that this was why, up to last week Monday, “not one member of the Opposition was complaining, because we were in collaboration.” He further contended that Bunting served in the ECJ and “he knows how the ECJ operates”.

“This response from a very prominent member of the Opposition, coupled with the motion that was originally moved in Parliament 10 years prior by the Member [Clifford] Warmington in 2012, make it sufficiently clear that the members of the Opposition were not only consulted, but were in agreement with the assumption of the responsibilities of the Office of the Political Ombudsman by the ECJ. This Bill simply seeks to give effect to that and nothing more. This, therefore, begs the question, what would have changed between 2022 when the recommendation was last made and accepted, and today?” he questioned.

He further argued that the recommendation is consequent on years of discussion and consultation and that the decision has not been taken lightly or without due consideration.

“The passage of this Act will redound to the benefit of future generations as the assumption of the functions by the ECJ will allow for the wealth of knowledge and experience in that body to be brought to bear in the performance of the functions of the political ombudsman,” he said.

As he concluded his statement, Chuck urged the Opposition: “Let’s get back to basics. Let us have this thing done. Let us have a political ombudsman in place without any political considerations, because this body can perform this role with independence, with fairness, and with the credibility and integrity that they have done in the past.”

But Opposition Leader Mark Golding argued that his understanding is that the proposal was that the ECJ should be utilised to provide administrative support to an officer who could play the role of the political ombudsman and to absorb the cost of this position, “not that ECJ commissioners should become the persons who adjudicate on these very partisan matters”.

“I was aware that the commission of Parliament was deliberating on this issue as to how to save costs, and what was being proposed is that the ECJ and the Electoral Office would assume administrative support for the function of the political ombudsman, which might be housed in that office. Never was it discussed that the commissioners would become the political ombudsman, and to suggest otherwise is simply untrue. That was not on the table at the time. The first time we heard about that proposal was when this Bill was tabled by the minister of justice in this House [last week],” he argued.

He said that when the Bill came to the House, there was no consultation with the Opposition about what is being proposed in the legislation that the nine commissioners should become the political ombudsman. “In other words, involving the commissioners in the adjudication process of disputes which arise during a campaign, in particular such as what has happened recently in St Thomas… and Trinityville… We fundamentally disagree with it. We expressed our reasons cogently last week. We were joined by one member on the other side… When the debate was suspended we anticipated some discussions as to how to move forward in a collaborative way. There have been no such discussions. All that has happened is that they’ve come back now to ram this Bill through today, despite the concerns of us and the wider society on the matter. It is disgraceful,” Golding said.

The Bill is expected to go to the Upper House for approval.