We were just at the point of forgiving Justice Minister Mr Delroy Chuck for his statement last week about the Integrity Commission when he had us do a complete reversal by claiming that what he said was misinterpreted.

That claim is a cover often used by politicians and public officials when they have painted themselves in a corner and, instead of standing up like adults and admitting that they were wrong, try to deflect blame.

It fools no one and, quite frankly, belittles them in the eyes of the populace.

Minister Chuck was very clear in his comments at the meeting of Parliament’s Integrity Commission Oversight Committee last week. He told the meeting that some Members of Parliament had asked him if it is right for the Integrity Commission to be requesting information regarding the salaries of their spouse and children.

“Why is the Integrity Commission asking members to indicate the salaries of their spouse or sometimes of their children? I don’t know if this is something that is appropriate, because I have advised the relevant members, let them know your spouse is not prepared to divulge their salary,” Mr Chuck said.

He went further to suggest that limits need to be placed on what the commission is allowed to investigate. Here is his exact quote: “These are things that when we get back to the legislation we have to make it very clear what limits can be put in terms of investigations.”

It seems to us that by making those comments Mr Chuck opened the way to the allegation that he had advised fellow legislators to break the law.

Section 40 (1) of the Integrity Commission Act states: “A statutory declaration shall include such particulars as are known to the declarant of the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse and children, where applicable, of the declarant.”

The Integrity Commission, in upbraiding Mr Chuck, reminded him that this legal obligation meets universally recognised anti-corruption and good governance standards that have been written into Jamaican law by Jamaica’s lawmakers who passed the Integrity Commission Act in 2017. And, “contrary to what some commentators, including some lawmakers, have publicly suggested, they are not requirements that have been imposed by the Integrity Commission”.

Mr Chuck has not hidden the fact that he has a problem with the Integrity Commission. He has, in the past, been very critical of how it operates.

To be fair, the Integrity Commission has given him, and indeed other individuals, as well as this newspaper, reason to question its judgement and the manner in which it conducts investigations and issues releases in a few instances. However, we cannot have people breaking the law simply because they are upset about the provisions in the law.

The fact that Mr Chuck is himself a legislator, and indeed, was among those who debated and passed the Integrity Commission Act eight years ago, makes his comments even more egregious.

If he has a problem with the law, then his duty is to raise his objection in the Parliament and make suggests on how to improve legislation. In fact, as justice minister, he is perhaps best placed to do so.

We trust that none of the legislators who were advised to sidestep the law actually acted on that advice.