It is welcome that the leaders of the Integrity Commission (IC) turned up at a meeting with its parliamentary oversight committee. I say welcome because there seems to have been some reticence to do so.

Chairman of the commission, retired Justice Seymour Panton, hinted as much in his opening statement at the meeting. It was as if they were just doing the parliamentarians a favour, not that they had to attend.

It must be made clear to the members of the commission, and to all other commissions and governmental groups, that there can be no point at which they cannot be called upon to account for their attention to the people’s business. None of them is above the law which brought them into being. When they are called upon to account, they cannot say they will not do so. They must see it as part of their duty to subject themselves to the level of accountability that is required of them in the discharge of their duties; to recognise that they are not a law unto themselves; and that public scrutiny of their actions and decisions should be considered paramount.

The seemingly adversarial atmosphere that the chairman brought to the meeting was profoundly disturbing. He seemed, in my opinion, to be in a defensive and combative mode. For the better part of two years the integrity of the commission has been questioned by parliamentarians and others in the wider society who believe that the members have not been conducting the business of the commission with the requisite fairness and temperance expected of such a body. Their handling of the prime minister’s statutory declarations has been particularly problematic.

So one could understand the defensive mode of the chairman. But what cannot be accepted is the adversarial environment he created in his statements and comments to questions asked. His reference to the mental soundness of parliamentarians, even to the point of invoking the name of a prominent mental health professional as a potential source for those who need help, was frankly reprehensible and unbecoming of the learned gentleman.

If he meant this as a conduit for humour, it fell flatly and made the situation excessively worse. The statement or jest was not just an insult to parliamentarians but a mockery of those in the population who suffer from mental illness. There has been a marked increase of these sufferers, especially since the pandemic. Mental health is a leading social concern in the society. It is not something you joke about, or worse, diagnose from an armchair as a treatment for a body of people with whom you disagree. For this Justice Panton should apologise to the parliamentarians, the mental health community, and by extension, the people of Jamaica.

Outside of its petulant characteristic, his reference to taking his own water to Parliament can be interpreted in many ways. Was he decrying the quality of the water that is in the people’s Parliament? Was he suggesting that there was something in the water leading to the perceived mental deficiency he diagnosed in parliamentarians? Or, worse, was he suggesting that he could be poisoned in the precincts of the Parliament and the safest thing to do was to bring his own water? You see, Justice Panton, when you make specious statements like these and leave them hanging without any explanation, you open yourself to all kinds of speculations concerning your motives and intentions. The best thing to do is leave well alone when you are in a serious setting. After all, you were not in a rum bar having a few drinks with your friends.

I have said repeatedly in this column that Jamaica needs an institution like the IC. Functioning well, it keeps parliamentarians and public servants in high office on their toes. Because of its work, these individuals may be less disposed to act corruptly, and if they do, they are likely to be caught and prosecuted. This should exercise greatly the mind of anyone seeking to go down this road.

But since its creation, the present and founding members of the commission have not distinguished themselves in their conduct of the business. They have caused more public angst about its relevance than should be merited. At times, members have appeared arrogant, refusing to accept responsibility for their actions, such as in the case of Greg Christie, executive director of the commission, tweeting about Prime Minister Holness’s perceived wrongdoing when no such charge was proffered by the director of prosecutions.

Often, the different sections of the commission seem to operate as silos and there does not seem to be a seamless coordination among them that makes for orderly conduct of the commission’s business. There is need for a recalibration of these functions to bring them more in line with what can lead to less confusion in the public’s mind concerning the commission’s work.

And, please, commissioners, you are not infallible, so there should be no pretence on anyone’s part as to the possession of divine qualities. You will make mistakes, and when you do, people’s reputations can be badly hurt. A dose of humility in how you do your work and respond to other people’s criticism of that work would be in order.

Trying to be who you are not is among the greatest indulgence in self-mockery.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; Your Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. He hosts the podcast Mango Tree Dialogues on his You Tube channel. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.