Peter Espeut | Honouring George William Gordon

The Integrity Commission cannot be blamed for gaps in the laws and regulations which governs its operations. Neither the Commissioners nor the staff of that creature of parliament must attract any criticism for how the law is written – for what the legislation says, and for what it doesn’t say.

The fact is that the same people the legislation was designed to catch in the act of corruption and illicit enrichment are the same ones who designed and promulgated the Integrity Commission Act 2017, designed its structure, and wrote the rules by which it operates. The fox was put in charge of the security of the henhouse.

An equivalent would be to go to the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre to seek assistance from the residents in drafting laws against larceny and fraud; or to seek advice on the preparation of anti-abortion legislation from the owners and operators of an abortion clinic, or advocates of anti-reproductive rights.

In one sense those could be the best people to go to; those involved in corruption know “the runnin’s”, and if they agree to really help, may be best placed to advise on anti-corruption measures (viz. the old adage that “it takes a thief to catch a thief”).

But in the real world, asking thieves to draft and enforce laws against theft may be the best way to ensure that thieves will be convicted with the greatest difficulty. Such, I am sorry to say, is the situation with the Integrity Commission Act.

There are many types of political corruption, but a common form involves the award of government contracts to friends and political cronies, and in return, some of the profits from the deal are shared with the politician: either as donations to his political campaign (campaign finance), or as kickbacks directly to the politician’s pocket (illicit enrichment).

DETECTED AND PROSECUTED

How could such corruption be detected and prosecuted?

First, it must be easily known who is awarded government contracts. Prior to the creation of the Integrity Commission in 2017, the National Contracts Commission published a list of government contracts and who got them. Under the Integrity Commission Act, this information is confidential and top secret. That is one way to make sure that corruption goes undetected!

Second, it must be easily known who gives how much to political parties and candidates. In seriously democratic countries committed to fighting corruption, a list of political donations and donors is publicly available. Under Jamaica’s campaign finance legislation, either donations need not be reported and recorded, or when they must be (when they are large and within a certain reporting period) they are confidential and top secret. That is a second way to make sure that corruption goes undetected!

Third, if a politician is receiving kickbacks, or money “under the table”, a careful analysis of their personal finances and their lifestyle will detect it: when increases in assets (houses, cars, yachts, jewellery, trips abroad) are greater than income would allow. Therefore, every politician annually should declare to the Integrity Commission their income and expenditure (and that of close family members) for forensic accountants to analyse for anomalies (i.e. illicit enrichment). Under Jamaica’s Integrity Act, these declarations are made in secret, and are analysed in secret. Members of the public who might know of undeclared assets, are forbidden to know what politicians claim they own; were declarations public, the citizenry would be able to contribute to detecting false declarations. This is a third way to make sure that corruption goes undetected!

A fourth strategy written into the system by the foxes guarding the henhouse is to under-resource the Integrity Commission so that it does not have the capacity to analyse the volume of annual income and asset declarations required by law.

GAG CLAUSE

And just to make sure, the whole process is covered by a gag clause with stiff penalties (no whistleblowers wanted here): who is being investigated for illicit enrichment is top secret; whose annual declarations cannot be certified is top secret (except for the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition whose declarations in grossly summary form must be published annually; therefore if they are not published, we know they are not certified).

There is such a body as an Integrity Commission Oversight Committee whose mandate is to monitor the operations of the Integrity Commission. And who make up one hundred percent of this body? You guessed it! The same people the Integrity Commission is supposed to be investigating for possible corruption. I will leave it to you to decide how likely it is that persons under investigation for illicit enrichment may find themselves on this oversight committee.

I am not surprised that Jamaica’s Integrity Commission finds itself unable to prosecute any politician for corruption, including bribery, graft, influence-peddling, or illicit enrichment. The foxes have placed every possible obstacle in their way.

A note of irony! The Integrity Act was signed into law on October 23, 2017. Does that date ring a bell?

Jamaican National Hero George William Gordon was hanged to death on October 23, 1865 by agents of the Jamaican government; our parliament building is named after him.

We know only too little about the lives of our national heroes. George William Gordon – Member of the House of Assembly for St. Thomas-ye-Vale (1844-1847), MHA St. Thomas-in-the-East (1863-1865) – was a thorn in the side of corrupt politicians and government officials, including the governor. Space only allows two examples:

The Piano Affair

The Rev Henry Bleby tells us that the Jamaica House of Assembly voted £1,000 for “sundry repairs” to the official residence of the governor, but that Governor Eyre used about £200 of that to purchase a piano for his family’s use; he would have taken it with him on leaving Jamaica. Gordon exposed the misappropriation of public funds in the Assembly, and Eyre had to return the money. Bleby believes (and I agree) that this was partly the source of the animus of Eyre towards Gordon.

The Tramway Scandal

Governor Eyre was chairman of a committee which awarded a contract for a tramway between Kingston and Spanish Town to a company in which the government Chief Engineer was a major shareholder. Gordon exposed this profound conflict of interest, and in addition, in 1862 Gordon accused Governor Eyre in the Assembly of trying to sell public lands to private interests to establish toll roads!

Fighting political corruption was part of the mission of George William Gordon, the politician, and eventually led to his execution by government agents. I do not think the lives of our current crop of politicians are under threat for this reason.

To respect the legacy of National Hero Gordon, those who populate Gordon House need to do a better job of fighting corruption by empowering the Integrity Commission to better do its job.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com