Limited number of corruption prosecutions remains a problem
IN THE course of providing evidence for the ineffectiveness of the present legislative approach, CaPRI referenced, in its report, figures obtained from Office of the Contractor General reports which revealed that, between March 2008 and December 2009, none of over 30 cases submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) had been prosecuted. Our spokespersons, however, erred in a subsequent radio interview by claiming that over 40 of these referrals had, in total, not been prosecuted since then, and by referring to these as “corruption cases” when they were actually classified as “criminal offences”.
As former Contractor General Greg Christie clarified in a recent article, this figure concerns the period between March 2008 and February 2011. While prosecution remains lacking, we do however need to update this information, as two cases have indeed been prosecuted since.
All the same, the limited number of corruption cases prosecuted by the DPP remains a problem in its own right. The paucity of prosecutions supports the impression that no credible threat of prosecution exists and thus there is no deterrent. The international community has also perceived this to be a serious problem for the country. The Organization of American States (OAS), at its 24th Meeting of the Committee of Experts on the Implementation of the InterAmerican Convention Against Corruption (MESICIC) in Jamaica, declared “As these government bodies rely exclusively upon the DPP to carry out prosecutions of corruption and corruption-related offences, their effectiveness can only go so far if prosecutions are not being carried out.
The committee observes that the country under review should consider addressing the lack of prosecutions or actions undertaken by the Office of the DPP, whether it is an issue of priorities or resources.”
Thus, this issue should not be ignored and ought to be highlighted until positive change is realised.
The DPP defends her office’s decision not to prosecute these cases on the basis that they were only “administrative breaches” and not actually cases in which corruption had been alleged. While that is true, the DPP manifestly fails to appreciate that those procedural requirements are mandate by law precisely to close off opportunities to engage in corruption. If Jamaica is indeed to progress in confronting corruption, avoidance of anti-corruption procedures must be treated with the same rigour and prosecuted with the same vigour as evidence of corruption itself.
CaPRI’s report, however, was not geared towards improving legislation and enforcement but rather, towards suggesting a quite different approach which would complement the existing anti-corruption framework.
Towards that goal, as consistent with good research methodology, CaPRI did reach out to the DPP during the course of the research. We were therefore directed by Ms Llewellyn, in February of this year, to a representative of her office, and a productive consultation did take place.