DR Roger Koranteng, adviser and head of public sector governance at the Commonwealth Secretariat, has reinforced a position that we have consistently championed in this space regarding Section 53(3) of the Integrity Commission (IC) Act.

The provision, commonly referred to as the gag clause, exists — as Dr Koranteng aptly observed on Monday — for very good reason. Speaking at a press briefing ahead of the 12th Annual Commonwealth Caribbean Association of Integrity Commissions and Anti-Corruption Bodies Conference, now being hosted by Jamaica, he articulated a principle that lies at the heart of every fair and credible justice system.

“When somebody is under investigation, that doesn’t mean that the person has been convicted,” he noted. “You are talking about people’s integrity, what they have built for years.” He cautioned that prematurely exposing individuals who are merely the subjects of investigations can inflict irreparable harm, particularly if those investigations ultimately reveal no wrongdoing. A reputation painstakingly built over decades can be shattered in an instant, with little prospect of full restoration.

Dr Koranteng’s words carry considerable authority as he has been instrumental in establishing and strengthening governance and anti-corruption institutions across numerous jurisdictions. His perspective is therefore not merely theoretical; it is grounded in extensive practical experience.

Section 53(3) of the IC Act requires that investigations remain confidential until a report is tabled in Parliament. The rationale is both logical and necessary, because before the establishment of the IC there were numerous instances of individuals being publicly identified as subjects of investigations. Predictably, many were convicted in the court of public opinion before any evidence had been fully examined, much less tested.

The damage caused by such premature exposure cannot be overstated. History is replete with examples of individuals accused of serious misconduct, subjected to intense public scrutiny, and ultimately vindicated. Yet exoneration often fails to erase the stain of suspicion or repair the personal, professional, and emotional harm inflicted.

Confidentiality is not a shield for wrongdoing; it is a safeguard for justice.

One of the most fundamental responsibilities of any investigative body is to protect the integrity of its inquiries while preserving the rights of those under investigation. If charges are eventually warranted, they should be laid on the strength of evidence, not on the basis of rumour, speculation, or public pressure.

Law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies wield immense power. Such power must always be exercised with restraint, fairness, and an unwavering commitment to due process. No responsible investigator should seek to condemn an individual based on suspicion alone.

Mr Craig Beresford, executive director of the IC, is arguing that the Act needs to be strengthened, as there are issues concerning the IC’s independence. We await with interest the recommendations that he says have been submitted to Parliament to address the operational challenges confronting the institution.

We share his view that the IC is an essential pillar of accountability that must never be weakened or diluted. However, preserving the commission’s effectiveness cannot come at the expense of fundamental principles of fairness. Any departure from those principles is not merely imprudent, it risks becoming unjust.