Members of the parliamentary committee that has oversight for the Integrity Commission (IC) have put in motion a plan to make going through the IC’s 200-page annual report more efficient. Their review of the document will begin next Thursday.

During the committee meeting on Wednesday to discuss how the review would proceed, Opposition Member of Parliament Phillip Paulwell suggested that for the next meeting members should be provided with the specific recommendations to be examined.

This, he said, would allow them to readily grasp what recommendations had been green-lighted and acted upon in the last year versus those that had not. Paulwell said this was needed to ensure “that it does not appear as if we are just going through the motions”.

Committee Chairman Edmund Bartlett agreed that this would be facilitated.

The IC’s report was tabled on July 9 and outlines its performance in carrying out its mandated duties during the last fiscal year. It included the revelation that two more parliamentarians are being investigated for illicit enrichment.

On Wednesday Bartlett told members that IC commissioners would be invited “to attend on the committee and for us to get further and better particulars relating to the report itself”.

That prompted Opposition Member Julian Robinson’s question on whether an assurance could be given that commissioners would attend the scheduled meeting.

“I cannot give you an assurance… but you know, they have a responsibility to this committee and I have no doubt that they will respond appropriately,” Bartlett responded.

Since its first annual report the IC has made several recommendations for changes in the legislation governing its operation. In the 2023/24 report the commission’s Executive Director Greg Christie underscored two from among the long list. They speak to what is commonly referred to as the gag clause.

“There are also two provisions of the ICA [Integrity Commission Act] – Sections 53(3) and 56 – that require special mention, particularly because they have now led to unwanted outcomes that many did not anticipate,” he said.

This appeared to be in reference to the swirl of speculation about the identity of parliamentarians being investigated for illicit enrichment. In the previous year’s report, the IC said six were under probe. The gag clause stipulates that they cannot be named.

“The sections, by gagging the commission, have provided a cover for corruption, stifled transparency on a wide range of matters of public interest, fuelled harmful speculation, undermined public trust, and caused grave damage to the integrity of key officials and institutions of the State because of the inability of the commission to provide public clarifications and information on critical issues,” said Christie.

“Be that as it may, and until the ICA is revised, the commission is, however, obliged to enforce the Act and steadfastly abide by its terms. That, in essence, is also what the rule of law requires,” he added.

There has been a long-running debate about the implications of the gag clause. Those in favour of it argue that it protects the reputation of those under investigation should the issue that triggered the probe prove to be false. Critics, such as sections of civil society and the Jamaica Council of Churches, have argued that the secrecy it provides can give the impression of corruption.

In addition to the reference to the gag clause, other recommendations from the IC include a mechanism to stagger the term of appointment of the “appointed commissioners” to ensure a smooth transition at all times and the maintenance and preservation of the institutional memory of the commission; amending Section 39 of the ICA to require declarations from parliamentarians in relation to: (a) membership in political, trade, or professional organisations; (b) contracts with the government; (c) directorship/beneficial interest in corporate bodies and government boards; (d) beneficial interest in land (e) trustee or beneficiary of a trust; and (f) any other substantial interest that may result in a potential conflict of interest.