We are concerned that the Integrity Commission (IC) is making errors that have the possibility of casting a stain on its image.

The latest episode involves Mr Dwayne Vaz, the People’s National Party caretaker for Westmoreland Central who once held that seat in the Parliament.

In its report tabled in the House on April 23, 2024, the IC referred Mr Vaz for prosecution, saying that he failed to provide information in relation to his statutory declaration for the year 2019.

According to the commission, Mr Vaz had filed his statutory declaration for 2019 on March 30, 2020, in keeping with his obligation as a legislator. However, the IC wrote to him on November 3, 2020 requesting more information, and gave him a November 16, 2020 deadline.

Mr Vaz sought an extension of the deadline as, he said, he had faced “unforeseen delays in accessing the information”.

Eventually, after a series of exchanges between both parties, the IC served Mr Vaz with a notice to discharge liability on February 18, 2021, giving him 30 days to pay a fixed penalty of $250,000 to Tax Administration Jamaica and submit the outstanding information to the commission.

In its report to Parliament the IC acknowledged that Mr Vaz provided the requested information but was referred for prosecution because he failed to pay the fixed penalty.

However, Mr Vaz tells us that on March 26, 2024 he received a summons to appear in court on charges of failing to provide required information to the IC
.

He pleaded guilty yesterday on the matter of the non-payment of the fine. However, we hear that Mr Vaz had earlier brought to the court’s attention correspondence from the commission dated May 18, 2021 that his statutory declaration up to December 31, 2019 was duly completed in accordance with the Act.

Curiously, Mr Vaz says the commission’s attorneys were unaware of the May 18, 2021 letter from the IC certifying his declaration. That suggests that right hand doesn’t know what left hand is doing.

This was not the first time that the actions of the commission have been brought into question.

Readers will recall a colossal mess surrounding an investigation report on a conflict of interest issue involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness.

As we stated at the time, tabling that report in Parliament without the subsequent ruling by the director of corruption prosecution that “no criminal charges can be laid” against Mr Holness gave the impression that the commission had an ulterior motive. The actions of the IC’s executive director in that matter only served to further erode public confidence.

We also recall a complaint made by Opposition Senator Mr Peter Bunting in 2023 that the commission had criticised him over two firearm licence appeals he had reviewed and granted in 2012 during his tenure as national security minister.

The IC, he said, had omitted from its report the fact that he was acting in accordance with the recommendations of the review board, set up in the law to advise the minister, despite him explaining in writing in response to the commission’s questions.

All this does not augur well for a critical State entity empowered to monitor the conduct of public officials and, where needed, initiate prosecution.

The commission can’t keep making such errors and expect public support. At the very least, it should explain what happened in Mr Vaz’s case.