We are not surprised that there are individuals and groups who, after all they have seen in the past, continue to advocate the removal of Section 53 (3) from the Integrity Commission Act. For it is obvious that tarnishing people’s reputation on mere speculation remains a popular sport.

The gag clause, as it has been labelled, states: “Until the tabling in Parliament of a report under Section 36, all matters under investigation by the director of investigation or any other person involved in such investigation shall be kept confidential, and no report or public statement shall be made by the commission or any other person in relation to the initiation or conduct of an investigation under this Act.”

The clause makes perfect sense because, previously, before the Integrity Commission came into being, there were many examples of news releases naming individuals to be investigated. Predictably, the subjects were declared guilty in the court of public opinion even before the probes began.

The most recent case of this call to recklessness has involved demands for the naming of eight legislators the Integrity Commission says are being investigated for illicit enrichment, ahead of the probe’s completion.

We reiterate, were that to be done, the Integrity Commission, and the Government — to which this demand has been directed — would have breached the right to due process of those being investigated.

That the loudest and most consistent call for naming those eight individuals is coming from the political stage is not surprising, as it is the wont of politicians to score points. As we are now in a full-blown election campaign, we don’t expect any resort to good sense.

However, we can’t help but wonder about the motive of the so-called civil society groups and individuals who portray themselves as champions of justice continuing to advocate that the clause be struck from the Act.

As we have said before, everyone knows that a reputation, once damaged, is difficult to repair. Just ask anyone who, having been accused of a serious crime, faced the courts and was eventually found to have been the victim of a plot to destroy them.

People need to accept that a most important duty of anyone conducting criminal investigations is to preserve confidentiality, protect the rights of suspects to privacy, and, in the event that they are charged, that they be afforded a fair trial.

Law enforcement agencies wield great power, and with that power comes great responsibility. No responsible law enforcer should even think of indicting anyone on the basis of perception or suspicion.

Fairness demands that any move towards indictment be grounded in evidence. As such, law enforcement agencies have a duty to conduct thorough investigations and then come to the public only after they have completed those investigations and are ready to lay charges.

Any deviation from that standard is reckless and borders on maliciousness, because it leaves a cloud of suspicion hanging — intentionally or unintentionally — over the heads of individuals involved in the matter being probed, even if they are proven innocent of wrongdoing.

The people who wish to have the names of individuals under investigation published before the conclusion of those probes should consider how they would react were they the ones under scrutiny.