Member of Parliament for St Andrew South Eastern Julian Robinson has recommended that the Integrity Commission (IC) release an update on the standing of public officials who it has charged for failure to file statutory declarations.

According to Robinson, this would prevent uncertainty as to whether the individual has been cleared, which has serious implications for their reputation.

Robinson, who raised the matter at Wednesday’s sitting of the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee, further suggested that the IC should provide the reasons why public officials are charged or not.

On the matter of the public standing of people who are charged by the IC, Robinson said it is important that the public knows if the matter has been cleared up and that the individual is now in good standing .

Highlighting the case of former CEO of the Registrar General’s Department (RGD) Charlton McFarlane who was charged for failing to submit his statutory declarations over four years but has since been cleared with no criminal liability, Robinson argued that there should be an indication from the IC that he had been vindicated.

“In the court of public opinion, having had that issue over his head without more, the public wouldn’t know that the matter has been resolved, and in a case like his, you trade on your reputation, quite frankly. And so I believe that if he has satisfied everything that you have asked of him and he has also dealt with the court matters, I think it is important to indicate, even if it’s a letter to him, or to the committee, to say he has successfully dealt with the issues and there is nothing outstanding,” Robinson said.

“Because… he was the head of the RGD it was all over the media and it’s important that the public knows, for his own future employment prospects, that he has complied with what you have asked him to do,” added Robinson.

Responding on the McFarlane matter, the IC’s Director of Prosecutions Keisha Prince-Kameka said it has been concluded as he has since submitted his statutory declarations and paid the fines for breaching the IC Act.

But that did not satisfy the committee’s Chairman Edmund Bartlett who said he was in agreement with Robinson’s suggestion that once the declarant in breach has complied with the IC’s request, it should be made known to save that person’s dignity and reputation.

“The hard, cold facts are that naming and shaming is as deleterious to the future of individuals as an actual charge in court, and people do suffer irreparable damage from that very process. Now, this is not to say it isn’t to happen, it’s only that so much care has to be taken in this regard because this is about the future of people, their children, their families,” said Bartlett.

“So many people, after being named and shamed, literally have lost their mind, because they lost their sense of person and that is a critical element that makes you a human being of value. And suddenly they feel, ‘Oh my God, I’m no longer anybody of value and it’s over’. So once the reparation is done, the process… requires clarity to the world. And so I agree that this chamber, this Parliament, should have that information as well as the public at large,” added Bartlett.

McFarlane’s case was mentioned along with other public officials who, in IC reports, were recommended to be charged for failing to file their statutory declarations. One individual
— manager of collections at Jamaica Customs, Ava Williams
— though named, was not charged.

In response, the IC’s Director of Investigation Kevon Stephenson told the committee that it was not a matter of naming or shaming anyone.

“These are persons who have been charged, with the exception of one person. And so the conviction in and of itself is public. We do take the point, however, that it would be important to indicate that since being charged and convicted they have complied with the requirements of the commission. We will take back these recommendations to the commission,” said Stephenson.

But Robinson questioned what was the difference in the case of Williams, who Stephenson recommended to be charged while Prince-Kameka decided not to prosecute.

“It seems, on the surface, without more, inconsistent with other decisions that have been taken to prosecute other persons for similar offences or, I would say, offences that would not even rise to what I’ve seen here. So my question would be, what would be the reasons in this particular case and generally when you make a ruling one way or another, do you provide those reasons so that we understand the basis of your ruling?” questioned Robinson

Responding, Prince-Kameka told the committee that in so far as a decision is made to charge or not, a ruling is passed through the IC’s executive director to its commissioners without the reasons for the ruling being made public.

“In particular, the Ava Williams matter had certain challenges on the documentation that were served on her… and on assessing the evidence, in support of the offence, it was determined that these errors actually went to the elements of the offence, and as such, that was the decision taken. So that is how it’s distinguishable from other matters; it’s not arbitrary,” said Prince-Kameka.

Robinson, however, argued that by providing the Parliament with only a decision as to whether to charge was not sufficient, as reasons should be given because it is important for the public to know the basis on which the IC acts.

“We are empowered as parliamentarians on this oversight committee to make recommendations and I’m strongly recommending that it [the ruling] be provided and it is to protect you from accusations of arbitrariness and bias because without more, that is the conclusion that people will draw when they just see that, oh, one person don’t get charged, but another person gets charged and they have no other basis for forming a conclusion,” Robinson said.

“Clearly, I understand [that] if you are going to charge, some information needs to remain confidential because you’re going to a court of law; I understand that. But I believe even if it is a summary [of the reasons], but more must be provided in these cases because… others are going to come and people are going to question and transparency is important,” Robinson added.