Absurdity in Parliament

IF IT is true that it is investigating the Airports Authority of Jamaica’s (AAJ) purchase of shares in the investment company FirstRock Capital, the Integrity Commission (IC) has already begun an internal probe to find out who, commissioners or staff, told government members of Parliament, including Speaker Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, about it. Assuming someone did, that person broke the law, and on summary conviction by a Parish Court judge, can be fined up to $1 million, or be jailed for as long as a year.

Really, what transpired in Parliament on Tuesday, of the Government hiding behind the IC’s presumed review of the AAJ-FirstRock transactions, highlights the iniquitous absurdity of the gag clause in the Integrity Commission Act, as much as it is a red flag to the danger of the Government using its majority to change the rules so as to limit potentially embarrassing scrutiny of its affairs.

The matter of the purchase by the AAJ and its subsidiary, Norman Manley International Airport Ltd, of over $400 million worth of FirstRock’s stocks became a matter of controversy after it was reported by this newspaper earlier this year. Weeks ago, the parliamentary Opposition, through its shadow transport minister, Mikael Phillips, formally asked the transport minister, Robert Montague, a series of questions related to the investment in the then start-up. The answers were to be given on Tuesday.

EMPTY-HANDED

However, Minister Montague went to Parliament empty-handed, pleading deference to the IC, on the basis that the subject of the questions was being “reviewed” by the commission. “I, therefore, crave the indulgence of the honourable House in allowing for the process to be completed and the outcome presented to the Parliament,” he said.

Speaker Dalrymple-Philibert and Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, acting as House Leader, spoke with similar certitude of an Integrity Commission’s investigation of the affair. The problem, though, is that the commission, insofar as this newspaper is aware, has made no announcement of such an investigation. That would be illegal. Section 53 (3) of the Integrity Commission Act proscribes the commission from disclosing, or making statements on, its investigations until after a report on its findings has been tabled in Parliament. Ironically, Mr Chuck, notwithstanding calls for its removal, is a robust defender of the so-called gag clause, doing so at last month’s meeting of the parliamentary committee that has oversight of the Integrity Commission.

Messrs Montague and Chuck did not disclose the source of their information about the probe. And Speaker Dalrymple-Philibert did not give reason for her unquestioning acceptance of their knowledge. At one stage, she even entertained the idea of writing to the IC – which is to be free of direction from anyone – to urge to hurry up its work.

The parliamentary episode suggests that parliamentarians either have access to privileged information about the I ntegrity Commission’s deliberations, or members of Parliament (MPs) are willing to prevaricate (they might call it calculated assumptions) for political ends.

The Integrity Commission needs to clear the air on whether it briefs MPs on its work, though not the rest of us. If it did, that would be in breach of Section 56 of the act, which obligates members and employees to secrecy with respect of information to which they are privy. In any event, the development is a powerful argument for excising Section 53 (3) and giving the commission discretion to make reasonable disclosure about its investigations. That would enhance transparency and public trust in the commission.

However, what, how and when parliamentarians know about the IC’s supposed probe of the AAJ-FirstRock matter is not the most egregious aspect of this affair. Of greater concern was Speaker Dalrymple-Philibert’s readiness to acquiesce to Mr Montague’s request, without grounding her decision in authority on parliamentary principles, except for her “deference” to the Integrity Commission and a vague reference to “the Standing Orders as it stands”.

The Speaker’s allusion to the prosecutorial powers of the Integrity Commission may, in this regard, imply a reliance on Section 16 (1) (vi) of the House’s Standing Orders, which prohibits the asking of questions “reflecting on the decision of a Court of Law or being likely to prejudice a case which is under trial, including a case tried by a Court Martial before confirmation”.

NO FACTUAL INFORMATION

But there is no factual information, except for the MPs say-so, maybe from some basis of privilege, that the Integrity Commission is investigating the AAJ. Even if it were, an investigation is different from prosecution. Indeed, both are separate functions within the IC, conducted by different arms of the agency. Further, Minister Montague was asked matters of fact (many of which are already in the public domain); not to arrive at judicial conclusions from the answers he provided.

In this regard, the Opposition leader’s suggestion, and the Speaker’s acceptance of it, that the parliamentary counsel be asked for interpretation of application of the Standing Orders with relation to matters under investigation, was a good one. But we are leery of the Speaker’s intention to refer the whole issue, inclusive of the parliamentary counsel’s opinion, to the Standing Orders Committee.

It is a real concern that whatever the views of the parliamentary counsel, the language of the Standing Orders may be adjusted to limit questions and discussion, even by committees of Parliament, of any documents or reports that might be subject to integrity or criminal investigations. Parliament should avoid any such action, which would amount to an assault on transparency and the further diminution of good governance.