We had hoped that it would not have come to this. However, we did express a sense of great hope and niggling dread in 2020 when Mr Greg Christie was appointed executive director of the Integrity Commission.

Hope that he had come back a better man, having learnt from his previous mistakes, thereby enhancing his chances of attaining superlative success in the fight against corruption; dread that he returned as the old Greg Christie, having learnt nothing and even more cynical than before.

We had reflected how, during his 2005-2012 tenure as contractor general, we watched with great disappointment and growing disillusionment as he allowed the overwhelming support for his office to go to his head.

What was more difficult to ignore was his penchant for rushing to the public with even the most spurious and unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing, caring not that when one’s name is dragged through the mud, even after it is proven to be unjustified, the damage is done. A hard-won reputation destroyed in an instant. That hurt his office grievously.

We had also recalled that, in his parting shot at the end of 2012, Mr Christie suggested that the Office of the Contractor General was like a “toothless bulldog”, and he decried the lack of political will on both sides to fight corruption, saying he had become despondent.

He then went off to take up the position of director of the Integrity Commission of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

On his return to public service here we had raised two questions, noting that perhaps, only time will provide the answer and set us at ease: Why was he returning at the time and why was he leaving what some thought was a cushy job after less than two years?

Jamaica’s Integrity Commission Act restricts the disclosure of investigations being conducted by the agency until the end of the examination, in order to ensure confidentiality in the process. That is contrary to how Mr Christie operated as contractor general. We had also asked whether his acceptance of the new job was a suggestion that he was now willing to change.

To be fair to Mr Christie, we haven’t seen him revert to that behaviour since joining the commission. However, in February this year, after the agency came under fire for its poor handling of the findings of a probe into conflict of interest allegations against Prime Minister Andrew Holness, Mr Christie’s tweeting of a media report on that matter without reference to a ruling by the commission’s own director of corruption prosecution, that there was no evidence to charge the prime minister, served to further shake public confidence in the agency.

Since then, the commission has been making progress in regaining public confidence. However, last Thursday Mr Christie struck a near mortal blow to that effort with his “ask the Government” response to a journalist after a director of the commission had been shot and robbed in New Kingston.

The response, which has correctly been described as reckless, has resulted in calls for Mr Christie to resign. They are not unreasonable, because as eminent attorney Mr Peter Champagnie has correctly said, Mr Christie’s response to the shooting betrays the very core function of what the Integrity Commission ought to represent and provides fodder for those who would want to suggest that the agency is politically biased.

The commission will not shake that view with Mr Christie there.