Dear Editor,

Jeanette Calder’s recent apology has stirred public debate — not because apologies are rare in Jamaican public life, but because this one arrived only after the fire had already spread, the reputational damage already done, and trust already shaken.

In the world of public accountability, timing matters. Sincerity matters. And when an apology comes only after backlash, it invites a fair question: Was it contrition or damage control? There is a deeper implication that should not be ignored: Trust is fragile, and institutions guarding accountability must themselves be beyond reproach.

Calder, known for her work with the Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP), has built her brand on transparency, scrutiny, and the moral authority to call Government and institutions to account. That makes this moment even more significant. When the watchdog stumbles, citizens expect not only a correction but a demonstration of the same standards she demands of others: swift acknowledgement, clarity, and ownership without qualifiers.

But what we received felt measured, calibrated — and late. The apology lacked the immediacy that signals instinctive responsibility. Instead, it came after the public conversation had escalated, after trust started to erode, and after commentators weighed in. In other words, not when it mattered most, but when silence became costlier than speaking.

Calder framed the incident as a communication misstep rather than a substantive breach of analytical rigour. That subtle reframing matters. We cannot call for probity from leaders while exempting advocates. Accountability must cut both ways.

This is not about perfection. Leaders, activists, and advocates are human. Missteps happen. But the test of leadership is not whether one errs — it is how, and how quickly, one responds. A proactive apology says: I recognise the harm, I value the people affected, and I hold myself to the standards I preach. A delayed apology, in my opinion, says: I’ve seen the reaction and now must manage it.

“A day late and a dollar short” is not simply an idiom, it captures a deeper truth about credibility. Accountability requires consistency. A voice of scrutiny must itself be open to scrutiny. And a champion of transparency must model transparency even when it is uncomfortable. Especially then.

Calder now faces a crossroads: Repair trust through meaningful reflection and stronger internal checks, or risk being remembered not for her advocacy but for the moment she hesitated. The public is forgiving when remorse is genuine — and decisive. This is her opportunity to prove that accountability is not only something she demands outwardly, but something she practices inwardly.

The apology may have arrived late. It may have landed short. But there is still room to follow it with action that rebuilds confidence. After all, what Jamaicans want is not perfection — we want honesty, humility, and leaders who can say “I was wrong” without needing to be pushed.

The nation deserves more than contrition. It deserves correction, clarity, and a recommitment to rigour. After all, accountability, like justice, is meaningful only when it applies to everyone — even to those who champion it most loudly.

Sandra Currie

sandragayle888@gmail.com