Speaker should fix IC error

IF THE House of Representatives sat tomorrow, it would be a fortnight since the Integrity Commission (IC) announced its submission of its latest investigation report to Parliament.

That is more than enough time for the document to have been tabled. In fact, there is no valid reason why that did not happen on January 22, the day after the IC sent the report to the legislature

For that matter, there is no logic for not immediately tabling reports of any kind sent to Parliament by the IC.

In the circumstance, Speaker Juliet Holness should revisit, and overturn, her ruling last November for the tabling of investigative reports “as soon as possible” after they are received, and for others to be first reviewed by the House’s Integrity Commission Oversight Committee (ICOC).

Such an action by the speaker would show Ms Holness as having the capacity for reflection and to admit to error. But more important would be its value to transparency and as a prick against the perception of Jamaica as a country steeped in corruption, where the government wants to control the flow of certain information from the IC to the public. There is also a view that some government legislators are intent on weakening the IC.

This perspective of Jamaica is likely to have contributed to the island remaining stuck on a score of 44 on Transparency International’s (TI) 2023 Corruption Perception Index, meaning that it is in a zone where countries are considered to have serious problems with corruption. TI scores countries from zero to 100, where 100 suggests that a country has no problem with public corruption.

The Integrity Commission is Jamaica’s leading anti-corruption agency. It monitors the wealth of legislators and certain public officials and polices the award and implementation of government contracts.

CHANGE

Until late last year, all reports by the IC – investigative or otherwise – as well as those by the auditor general (AuG), were tabled in Parliament immediately after their receipt. Ms Holness’ predecessor, Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, initiated the efforts to change that.

First, with reports from the auditor general, she grasped for a previously unused section of the Financial Administration and Audit Act to require that reports of all audits of government public bodies by the AuG be subject to a two-month hiatus before being tabled. This was to provide the portfolio minister time to respond to the findings. However, it is normal for officials of these agencies and departments to be aware of the audits while they are being done and to be provided the opportunity to provide rebuttals to negative findings prior to the completion of the reports.

Apparently, Ms Dalrymple-Philibert felt that the existence of the ICOC meant that the committee should first review IC reports before the general Parliament and the public had sight of them. But while this controversy was being played out, Ms Dalrymple-Philibert resigned her speakership and parliamentary seat after an IC investigative report accused her of misuse of a government incentive programme that gives public officials duty rebates on their motor vehicles.

Ms Holness, supported by the parliamentary counsel’s interpretation of two pieces of legislation (the attorney general’s office apparently did not share the position), pushed through with the decision with respect to when reports by the auditor general are tabled.

Regarding reports from the IC, Ms Holness ruled that its annual reports and any special reports it does that were specifically commissioned by Parliament, would, in line with Ms Dalrymple-Philibert’s plan, first go to the ICOC and then tabled.

Investigation reports, which often deal with complaints of failing to follow rules on procurement, the management of contracts, or other potentially corrupt actions, would be tabled “as soon as possible after receipt by the Parliament, having regard to the serious nature of the matters that are contained therein”.

NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION

There was no specific definition of “as soon as possible”. Further, these reports are to be reviewed by “officers” of Parliament, which presumably refers to the Speaker of the House, the president of the Senate and the clerk to Parliament.

It was never made clear if all three were required to read the reports, if timelines were set for this to be done, and what the “officers” were expected to do once they were acquainted with the information in the documents, which – as the IC’s chairman, former President of the Court of Appeal, Seymour Panton, reminded – they have no power to amend or edit.

The only practical value of this exercise, no doubt unwittingly, is to delay any serious debate of the findings in these documents, or if so recommended, their transmission to other agencies for action. In instances where an identified offence may be outside the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commission Act for prosecution, the bodies to which an investigation report may be sent include the police, the director of public prosecutions, or government departments or agencies whose systems were impacted. It is better if they can act quickly.