Opposition senators on Friday voiced strong disagreement with the Government’s push to subsume the functions of the political ombudsman into the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), earning the ire of their Government counterparts who blasted them for making a last-minute about-turn on the matter.

Pointing out that the Opposition had initially agreed with the position, Government Senator Kavan Gayle accused them of being “disingenuous” for raising an objection on the eve of the implementation of the Political Ombudsman (Interim) (Amendment) Bill.

He also accused the Opposition of trying to “create a smokescreen” on the eve of the local government election.

“They can only be described as an ungrateful hitchhiker. You jump on the journey, ride along, and now when you almost reach the destination you’re hopping off. It is unfair and unreasonable,” Gayle said, insisting that the Opposition had always been involved in consultations on the matter.

During the sitting Senator Peter Bunting, the leader of opposition business in the Upper House, had responded to Government Minister Delroy Chuck’s assertion in the Lower House on Tuesday that Bunting was in agreement with the Office of Political Ombudsman being subsumed by the ECJ as he had raised no concern about the proposal put forward by the then chair of the Political Ombudsman Commission, of which Bunting was a member.

Chuck said that the chair, then Speaker of the House of Representatives Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, had drafted a letter dated November 4, 2022 detailing the proposal to the prime minister and to the leader of the opposition, which was e-mailed to all members of the committee which included Opposition members, and she had asked for their feedback.

He said that on November 10, 2022, 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 would not be a protracted period between the departure of the ombudsman and the successor arrangement.

Part of the letter states: “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.

However, on Friday, Bunting argued that his “no objection” to the letter, with the commission merely stating that it wished to have the Parliament consider the proposal, “is somehow saying that today I am in support of this Bill which I’d never seen or the contents of it, and had never been suggested, much less debated or discussed
— it’s a lie… that is a massive stretch”.

“The vague idea at the time was that we could find more efficient ways to provide administrative support using an ECJ machinery costing taxpayers billions of dollars to provide administrative and even technical support to whatever the successor office of what a political ombudsman would be. But then, to make that leap to make the commissioners themselves now responsible for receiving, investigating, adjudicating breaches of the code of conduct is as far apart as night from day,” he said.

In the meantime, an attempt by Opposition senators to stop the debate and passage of the Bill was unsuccessful as the Government used its majority in the Upper House to pass the legislation.

The Administration’s strength in the Lower House saw the Bill being pushed through on Tuesday following a divide. This was after the debate 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.

The Opposition senators not only objected to the Bill being tabled and debated on the same day, they also continued to voice disagreement with the functions of the political ombudsman being subsumed by the ECJ, arguing that this would be “compromising the role of the ECJ”.

The Opposition called for a divide to prevent the Bill from being read a second time before being debated, but they lost with seven votes to the Government’s eight. They also called for a divide on the motion for a third reading before the passage of the Bill. Eight senators were in agreement, while six said no.

The Bill is now expected to go to the governor general for his assent, after which it will become law.