Justice Minister Delroy Chuck is insisting that the Government was correct when it acted on its own, without support from the political Opposition, in subsuming the Office of the Political Ombudsman within the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).

Readers will recall that the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Government used its massive majority in Parliament to push through the change — the Political Ombudsman (Amendment) Act, 2024 — last February.

Dissenting voices came from every direction, with civil society and lobby groups including the Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE) and the Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC) urging the Government to pull back from assigning political ombudsman responsibilities to the ECJ.

CAFFE argued that “…saddling the ECJ with [the political ombudsman’s office] overlooks the reality that its membership includes politicians…”

The JCC said, among other things, that instead of burdening the ECJ, the Office if the Political Ombudsman — which was largely toothless — should be strengthened with additional powers.

It was also strongly argued that, even if there were to be change, such a decision should not be pushed through by the Government simply by using its overwhelming parliamentary majority.

In recent times, with parliamentary elections fast approaching, and political tensions rising, much of the above objections have been repeated alongside calls for the original political ombudsman arrangements to be reinstated.

Back in 2022, as Mr Chuck defended the Government shutting down the political ombudsman’s office. He said it would save money; that integrating the office into the ECJ had been agreed in principle by all sides a decade earlier; and that only independent members of the ECJ would probe complaints, not politicians.

Since passage of the amended law, an extremely disconcerting aspect for those of us looking on has been what seems to be total silence from the ECJ regarding occasional reports of political tension and friction.

Also, there was no word from the ECJ despite disturbing — though, as far as we know, unproven — talk of vote-buying and intimidation, before, during, and after, last year’s local government polls.

To some, it may seem there is much ado about nothing, since elections here over the last two decades and more have been mostly orderly and peaceful.

However, the situation is very different for those of us with haunting memories of extreme violence and mayhem caused by tribal politics in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s.

In rejecting recent calls for the Government to backtrack, Mr Chuck said this week that, “It is in the nation’s interest to extend the reach of the well-functioning ECJ to close any gaps that may exist in the oversight of the political process and political conduct.”

In fact, Mr Chuck has put the ECJ squarely on the spot by voicing disappointment that it has not indicated how alleged political misconduct is to be probed and reported.

The minister said that, to his knowledge, “about $60 million” had been allocated for the ECJ to execute the political ombudsman’s functions.

According to Mr Chuck, he expects the ECJ to appoint “a director of political conduct”. That person, in his view, would accept and investigate complaints and then report to the ECJ for further action.

We believe the independent leadership of the nine-member ECJ should stay silent no longer. It now needs to speak up.