Less secrecy, more truth to set us free
ON OCTOBER 14, I was among those who welcomed Edmund Bartlett convening the longoverdue meeting of Jamaica’s Parliament’s Integrity Commission Oversight Committee. This meeting began review of the work of the Integrity Commission, and in so doing, commenced consideration of recommendations made by the Integrity Commission in its 2020-21 annual report. A key recommendation is to remove the “Gag Order”, which bans the Integrity Commission from telling the public who it is investigating for corruption or for wrongdoing. In the course of the discussion, our attorney general called for “balance” between the public’s “need to know” and the harm that may be done to an individual’s reputation, who, after investigation, is found to be blameless. Of course, avoiding damage to one’s good reputation is an important objective, whoever is involved.
But I ask myself, in the case of a aember of Parliament or a senator, is keeping secret the name or names of members of Parliament (MPs) known to be under investigation achieving that purpose? Is secrecy likely to protect the reputation of any of the 63 MPs or 21 senators when the public is aware that some are being investigated for corruption but we cannot be told who?
We should be aware of what the prevailing reputation of our MPs is in the public mind. According to the most recent 2021 Don Anderson Poll, commissioned by NIA, 84 per cent of Jamaicans believe that “politicians” are involved in corruption, and 65 per cent perceive politicians to be that group in our society where the highest level of corruption exists. Is hiding the names of those in relation to whom the Integrity Commission is conducting an investigation likely to improve this reputation? Or is disclosing the names – more often than not, of a minority – in relation to whom a probe is being conducted more likely to undermine an erroneous perception that a majority of politicians are involved in corruption?
NOT CORRUPT
There can be little doubt that many MPs and senators are upstanding and not corrupt. Many of us may actually know current and former MPs and senators who are either now serving or who have left Parliament with modest means. Some actually sacrificed previous income to serve as legislators; others left Parliament worse off than when they went in, attempting to move Heaven and Earth to do good for their constituents and to make our country a better place during their tenure. But as “politicians”, their reputation is regrettably tarnished in the public’s mind by being “lumped” with those who – under the cover of darkness and the cloak of anonymity – get rich and amass much wealth without any known legal source of acquiring those massive assets. Ask yourself - and the honest MP in particular should ask himself/herself - how is the reputation of the politician of integrity being protected by keeping the identity of the suspect few hidden from the public?
Let us be concrete. The 201920 annual report of the Integrity Commission to Parliament tells us that two MPs/senators were referred by the Integrity Commission’s Investigative Division to the director of corruption prosecution. But the ‘gag clause’ in the law prohibits the commission from telling us who they are, in a country where four of every five Jamaicans believe that politicians are involved in corruption. Hence, secrecy allows fingers to be pointed and questions to be raised in relation to each of the 63 members of the House and the 21 senators. Can it be justified that this secrecy compels 82 of our 84 representatives to truthfully, but ineffectively, mount the “Shaggy defence - “It wasn’t me” - and the public still doubt each of them because we don’t know who was being investigated? At the same time, the two nameless ‘get away’ with us not knowing who they are.
The reality is that the more informed our people are, t he less likely we shall be victims of misperception and of misinformation. This is one important reason why in Jamaica, as i n other democracies, the right to information and access to information is a fundamental constitutional right. It is a right, which since 2011 under the Charter for Fundamental Rights and Freedoms is not to be “abrogated, abridged, or infringed” by any parliament or by any government body “save only as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Is our right to know which MP is being investigated demonstrably justifiable in the public interest?
AMEND OR DELETE SECTION 53(3)
I think not. For this reason, I urge the Oversight Committee to recommend and the Parliament to amend or delete Section 53(3) of the Integrity Commission Act, which imposes an absolute ban on disclosing who it is investigating.
This would then allow the commissioners the discretion to tell us who is being investigated for corruption or for wrongdoing. Such a change would also allow you and me, or whomsoever has information on the matter being investigated, to come forward to support or to refute the allegation of wrongdoing. Furthermore, the law states that if no wrongdoing is found, the commissioners must publicly “exonerate the individual”.
The fact is that in other areas as well the more our right to information is respected, the more able we are to protect ourselves from misinformation. Should we not know from where some of our so-called bishops get their doctorates to better distinguish
between genuine pastors and “false prophets”? Should we not know what qualifications the members of boards, like Nutrition Products Limited’s, have, other than being “friend and company” of the minister or government of the day? Would it not help to know that 90-odd per cent of those who regrettably pass away from COVID19 were unvaccinated? In these and so many other areas, I suggest that the truth shall help to set us free.