Dear Editor,

The Integrity Commission (IC) once again has found itself in the hot seat as it faces mounting criticism over the tabling of its annual report in Parliament earlier this week, which exacerbated citizens’ level of confusion over the entity’s handling of matters of corruption involving parliamentarians and civil servants. And much attention has been given to the infamous “illicit six” who were mentioned in the IC’s 2022-2023 annual report.

To date, there is no concrete information as to who formed the illicit six. However, Opposition Leader Mark Golding has, for months, insisted that the IC has not contacted any of his 14 Members of Parliament or his eight senators for illicit enrichment. His persistent and consistent remarks in this regard has suggested that the six parliamentarians under investigation belong to the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). But, like Golding, Prime Minister Andrew Holness has stated that, after consulting far and wide with his colleagues, no one on his team is under investigation for illicit enrichment. Notwithstanding, the JLP has implemented a gag clause preventing Cabinet ministers and government lawmakers from commenting on the matter.

In any case, the People’s National Party’s (PNP) campaign against the Government on this issue somewhat backfired when news broke that former Member of Parliament for Westmoreland Central, Dwayne Vaz, was found guilty of failing without reasonable cause to provide requisite information relating to his statutory declarations. Was he a part of the illicit six?

Well, the IC’s 2023-2024 report says there are two parliamentarians under probe for illicit enrichment. Subsequent to its tabling, major media outlets reported that the illicit six was now down to the “illicit two”. However, the IC labelled their reporting as inaccurate, stating that the two parliamentarians cited in this year’s report are independent of what was reported in the previous year. Does this now bring the number to eight? Are there cases from previous years that are still ongoing?

Like me, many people are confused about the reporting and have developed further trust issues with the IC. The IC knows fully well that the matter of illicit enrichment is a priority for the country, as it has dominated the media for months, and especially because we are in an election-charged period. Therefore, its report should have clearly outlined the status of the investigations into the illicit six. For us to be second-guessing and digging deeply into unearthing the information is quite telling of the work of the IC. Their communication has certainly been poor.

Furthermore, with very insignificant achievements over the past six years, one must question if the IC has lost its integrity. For an organisation that cannot perform its core functions properly, how is it that it wants to sanction people?

Every organisation has some sort of challenge to achieve its objectives, whether in terms of finances, human resources, or legal limitations. However, certain targets still have to be met, despite the shortfalls; otherwise, management would have to resign and board members changed. Unfortunately we have a culture, especially in the public sector, of awarding people for underperformance.

With an annual budget of over $1 billion, the IC ought to produce more. The commissioners are handsomely paid compared to many public servants who equally have to meet high targets. The focus cannot just be on the gag clause preventing them from executing certain responsibilities.

If politicians fail to fulfil their mandates — even with lack of resources — it is seen as a poor excuse. For instance, Health and Wellness Minister Dr Christopher Tufton has not been spared heavy criticism for the state of the country’s health sector. It is often said that he campaigns on public relations. Several calls have even been made for his resignation.

While some people may chastise the IC due to political tribalism, there are those of us who want the system to work. We want a democracy in which the law works for everyone and no one is shielded whenever there is an infraction. Therefore, IC chairman retired Justice Seymour Panton should not feel attacked by those of us who genuinely care about wanting better and insist on accountability.

At the same time, civil society groups and a certain sect of the legal fraternity ought to be careful about prematurely calling for people under investigation to step aside. On the one hand, one can appreciate the merit of their call; however, on the other hand, what if they were referred to the IC out of malicious intent? It is very easy for people to lose their good reputation in such a case. They will argue, though, that the regular citizen would be announced by the police and the media even as a person of interest. But do politicians and the average citizen bear the same profile?

Besides, could it be clarified whether the IC writes to these individuals to specifically inform them that they are being investigated? Otherwise, does asking these individuals to provide further information regarding their statutory declarations equate to them being investigated?

Perhaps the IC and the media should educate the population about the procedures, as too much confusion and doubt surround the operations and outcomes.

Oneil Madden

maddenoniel@yahoo.com