It seems that in relation to the appointment of someone to do the work of political ombudsman — under cover of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) — the Government and political Opposition are agreed on one thing.

They both want more information from the ECJ regarding the “individual” (unnamed by the authorities up to the time of publication) whom Justice Minister Delroy Chuck told the nation on Wednesday has been appointed.

In a formal statement Mr Chuck urged the ECJ “to provide details surrounding the terms and engagement of the individual now functioning in the role of the previous Office of the Political Ombudsman, as well as how members of the public can contact that office with election-related matters”.

And Opposition spokeswoman on justice Senator Donna Scott Mottley says the ECJ should “immediately clarify the terms of engagement of this so-called field officer (new appointee) and to publish details on how members of the public can reliably and confidently engage with this office. Justice and democracy demand no less”.

This newspaper can only agree with both Government and Opposition.

We are hopeful that by the time this commentary is published, much more will have come from the ECJ.

We note news published by The Gleaner newspaper on Thursday of a letter signed by Mr Earl Jarrett, chairman of the ECJ — in which agency the Office of the Political Ombudsman is now subsumed — to the mayor of Montego Bay requesting information regarding controversial removal of election campaign advertising.

According to The Gleaner, the mayor, Mr Richard Vernon, is being asked to provide a written explanation for ordering the removal of the posters and “an outline of the legal authority and basis” for the action by the municipality.

Mr Jarrett, in his letter — said to have been dated April 25 — reportedly told Mr Vernon that Jamaica is now well into an active election campaign period ahead of parliamentary general elections which are due in September.

We wonder if, in the public interest, as well as for full accountability, transparency and good order, it would not have been better from the perspective of the ECJ had Mr Jarrett’s letter been formally and promptly released to the public?

What’s not needed is for any suggestion to gain credence that the ECJ, on which so much depends for free and fair elections, is caught up in unnecessary red tape, thereby delaying or preventing crucial communication.

We now hear that three aspirants for St James parliamentary seats representing the Opposition People’s National Party have now taken legal action regarding the removal of campaign posters by the St James Municipal Corporation.

We are unable to say if this step would have been taken, had Mr Jarrett’s letter to Mr Vernon been promptly and formally made public. Again, we wonder.

The unfolding controversy refocuses attention on the long-running contention by various groups that the Government’s decision to abolish the stand-alone political ombudsman’s office and transfer it to the ECJ was fundamentally flawed.

If anything, the argument goes, the stand-alone ombudsman’s office should have been given teeth in addition to a voice.

From this distance, it seems to us that at the very least an important lesson for everyone should be that if something is not broken, don’t try to fix it.