Sadly, it has become patently clear that there is no love lost between Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness and the country’s Integrity Commission (IC).

However much one would wish it were not so, there is a gnawing feeling in the pit of one’s stomach that the IC has not acted as carefully as it could in the handling of reports that have the potential to damage the prime minister’s reputation and sully his character. But since my stomach has not replaced my brain as the organ that thinks, I will leave it at the gut level for now. But if my gut is correct, the question is: To what end? What are the members of the commission trying to achieve?

There are incidents that stand out in my mind that give veracity to this gnawing feeling. First, there was a report that was sent to the Parliament regarding wrongdoing on the part of the prime minister. This related to his alleged involvement in influencing contracts for work to be done in his constituency. The Director of Corruption Prosecution Keisha Prince-Kameka had indicated that no charges would be laid against the prime minister, as there was no evidence of wrongdoing for this to occur.

One would think that such a serious matter would have been made clear to the members of the commission. Nonetheless, the executive director of the IC, Greg Christie, proceeded to retweet news articles that suggested charges would be laid against Prime Minister Holness. This was public mischief par excellence, in my opinion, because it produced serious disquiet within the society.

The second relates to the report on the prime minister’s statutory declaration. This was held up for an inordinately long time, as the commissioners felt they needed time to investigate the ramifications of the prime minister’s business endeavours and to ascertain whether he could be charged for illicit enrichment.

Although they found no evidence of wrongdoing, they did not sign off on the declaration and referred aspects of it to the Financial Investigations Division (FID) and Tax Administration of Jamaica (TAJ) for further examination and possible criminal indictment.

To save his name and reputation, which have been severely savaged in this saga, the prime minister has sought judicial review and has had some favourable rulings to date with regard to some of his contentions. As the case is still sub-judice there is not a great deal to be said here except to say that if the prime minister continues to get good reviews from the court, this can only amount to more eggs being thrown in the face of the commission. It clearly does not look good that the prime minister, to protect his name and reputation, has to be in judicial contention with the pre-eminent corruption body in the country. However it ends, no one wins. Certainly not Jamaica.

The third and latest episode in this ‘Netflix’ saga that is bothering my gut is the purported involvement of the prime minister in a property being constructed on 2 Weyclife Close in Beverly Hills. The report stated that a company, Estatebridge, that was connected to the prime minister is in breach of the building permits granted by the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC).

As it turned out, Prime Minister Holness is no longer associated with the company. This was known before the report was submitted, but his association with it was enough to move the commissioners to append his name to it nonetheless. Even if he was with the company when the KSAMC investigated the project and found the alleged breaches, the commissioners knew the weight that the prime minister’s name would carry if it were attached to the report. Again, my gnawing question: To what end?

I do not think it is necessary to lecture the commissioners that when a report leaves the commission to Parliament it has the full stamp of the commissioners and they collectively bear responsibility for the content of that report. It may be over the signatures of the prominent officers, but it nonetheless binds all members of the body. There may be individual commissioners who do not agree with the content of the final report, but to date we have not seen any dissent offered by any member. We, therefore, have to assume that all are aware and support the content of any report sent.

The country needs the commission, but I am getting to the point of thinking that it perhaps does not need the present crop of commissioners. Their first meeting with the parliamentary oversight committee was lamentable. They offered no apologies when required and prominent members seemed to be of the view that they are beyond question.

This is not what the country needs for a commission that investigates public corruption. The only thing that can sustain it and give it viability is public confidence in its work. The patience of the public is beginning to wear thin with this crop of commissioners, and they are indeed skating on thin ice.

The contract of at least six of its officials will expire between February and July 2025. All will be eligible for reappointment.

It is true that the Integrity Commission Act needs re-evaluation, especially with respect to the notorious gag clause. Also, each commissioner seems to live in a silo, and one wonders at the level of collaboration that takes place among them as they deliberate on the important matters that come before them. They, too, may be victims of the law.

But whatever the impediments, for the public to have trust and confidence in the body, it would be in the country’s best interest that the members finish out their term and allow new blood with fresh ideas and more appropriate temperament to take over. Here, my brain is thinking and not my gut.

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