THE issue of the so-called gag clause in the Integrity Commission Act has been raised on the hustings for the September 3 General Election by the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP).

According to Mr Mark Golding, the PNP president, if his party is elected to form the next government it will make changes to the clause to ensure that the names of politicians and government officials under investigation are made public.

“We will support the Integrity Commission and their work, and in fact, the gag clause that is in there that says them can’t report nothing until them send them final report to Parliament, we’re gonna modify that to give it more balance…,” Mr Golding told supporters at a rally in Spanish Town, St Catherine.

The clause 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.”

Opposition to the clause is not new, particularly among so-called civil society groups whose push to have it struck from the Act contradicts their posture as champions of justice.

We reiterate that it is unjust to tarnish people’s reputation on mere speculation. Readers will well recall that before the establishment of the Integrity Commission there were many examples of news releases, issued by the relevant anti-corruption authority, naming individuals to be investigated. That resulted in the people named being declared guilty in the court of public opinion even before the probes began.

That resort to recklessness is evident in demands for the naming of eight legislators that the Integrity Commission says are being investigated for illicit enrichment, ahead of the probe’s completion.

We cannot emphasise enough that, 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.

We are not surprised that the loudest and most belligerent call for naming those eight legislators keeps coming from the political stage as it is obvious that tarnishing people’s reputation without evidence is sport to politicians.

For those who keep baying for blood, please remember that a reputation, once damaged, is difficult to repair. Just ask anyone who was accused of a serious crime and faced the courts, only for the evidence to show that they were the victim of a plot to destroy them.

We all should keep in mind 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. The people who wish to have the names of individuals under investigation published before the conclusion of a probe should consider how they would react were they the ones under investigation.