Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, former speaker of the House of Representatives and Member of Parliament (MP) for Trelawny Southern, has resigned from both posts following accusations laid against her by the Integrity Commission (IC).

This relates to the purchase of a Mercedes Benz motor car about which the IC concluded she was less than truthful and failed to report in her integrity filings to the commission. Eight charges have been laid against her.

By resigning, the erstwhile speaker seems to have bent the knee to the various calls for her to recuse herself from her functions as speaker of the House or resign and clear her name. Most importantly, I believe she has bent to the pleadings of her conscience to resign from both positions.

Those of us who argued for her recusal or resignation did not expect her to resign her seat as MP. But she had to weigh the enormity of what she faced, reckon this with her conscience and perhaps the urgings of friends and family members, and then do what she determined the decent thing. Even when she was asked to reconsider by some of her colleagues, insofar as the information minister who reported this can be believed, she stood her ground and decided to walk away from it all. She still faces the charges that have been laid against her and will have to defend herself based on the presumption of innocence until otherwise determined in a court of law.

There are many lessons that one could learn from her action. One of the most prominent for me is that when you are a public officer occupying a very important post, especially that of speaker of the people’s Parliament, you do not have the luxury of indulging personal feelings as a way of negating or superseding the importance of the post you occupy. Personal feelings must bow to the service of the greater good. The greater good in this instance is the matter of the integrity of governance and the nature of the democratic society we want to build.

Integrity of governance can be impugned by personalities that occupy important posts at any time. This is why people have to be held accountable, especially when they behave as if they are bigger than the positions assigned to them.

I am not saying that this was the thinking of Dalrymple-Philibert, but I am making a general point. She might have wanted to continue as speaker, and for a while this seemed to have been her determined stance, but she seems to have realised that her situation was untenable. The sensible thing to do was to remove herself and allow the process to play itself out. Thus, she demonstrated that the high ground was not obstinacy but yielding to the best canons of accountability.

Other leaders would do well to learn this lesson as too many public servants are not able to separate their personal aspirations from the integrity of the office they occupy to realise that personalities come and go but institutions endure until changed by the collective will of the people. This is how a democratic Government functions.

This brings us full circle to the latest unfortunate and damaging situation in which the executive director of the IC, Greg Christie, is embroiled. When asked by a reporter what were his thoughts regarding the unfortunate shooting of one his colleagues, Christie, without hesitation, replied, “Ask the Government.” This was taken by many to mean that somehow the Government had a hand in the unfortunate incident.

It might be that Christie may have been seized with the presumption that the Government has not taken the security of members of the commission seriously enough given the alleged threats to its members. If this is his thinking, he has not clarified his statement even though he has had a clear weekend to do so up to the point of my writing this piece.

Whatever might have been his real thoughts or intentions in his reply, any well-thinking person would conclude that, at the very least, his response was inelegant, intemperate, injudicious, and unworthy of the post he occupies. Intemperate and injudicious because given the sensitivity of his post and considering the negative perceptions which the IC currently has in the public’s mind, such an off-the-cuff inference was beyond pale. Furthermore, there could be damaging consequences if people should perceive that the Government did have a hand in the shooting.

I believe Christie has damaged the office of the IC. He poured scorn on the office when he retweeted a report concerning the prime minister’s alleged involvement in a matter in which he was cleared by the IC and of which Christie would have had knowledge. That matter still hangs as a wet blanket over the integrity of the IC. And to now have this uninformed and damaging comment made by its executive director has cast that important institution in negative light. This is a line too far for many.

So, should Christie resign his post? To have to ask this question is for me a matter of great disappointment, given the esteem in which I held him when he served as the country’s contractor general. Then, he addressed his work with the kind of bulldog tenacity you want to see in people in such positions. Even his worst detractors would admit that this tenacity must have caused quite a number of would-be perpetrators of fraud in government to take heed and reconsider their intentions. He struck fear in the hearts of such and was justly held in high esteem by a grateful nation. He might have exceeded his zeal in some respects by naming individuals before any charge was laid against them, but he meant well and did a stellar service.

His work as contractor general no doubt credited him for his appointment as the executive director of the IC. But I believe that the time has come for him to seriously evaluate whether he is doing more harm to the institution than good. He has never presented himself as an expert in public relations, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is obviously not his forte.

This writer has to sadly conclude that he is now sullying the integrity that we expect from the IC. In the name of good governance and in an effort to preserve what may be left of the good name of the commission he should do right by himself, the commission, and the country at large and resign, or, at the very least, step down as the public face of the commission.

Like Dalrymple-Philibert, he would be well advised to yield to the call of conscience.

SSL, finally

The Minister of Finance Dr Nigel Clarke has announced that an insurance payout to the embattled Stocks and Securities Limited (SSL) will allow it to do its business without any subvention from Government. This is welcome news. Also welcome is the ability of stockholders to now move their accounts to other brokerage houses. This process has begun, albeit too belatedly in my view.

What could have tied up these accounts for almost a year when they were not owned by SSL or any other entity and could have been easily verified by the Jamaica Central Securities Depository (JCSD) as being in the name of the stockholders? But, as we say, better late than never. Many account holders are now relieved.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; The Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.