Editorial | IC eight should recuse

This newspaper believes in the principles of natural justice and of the right of any person accused of a crime to the presumption of innocence until proved otherwise by an appropriate tribunal.

In keeping with that standard, the eight parliamentarians who the Integrity Commission (IC) says it is investigating for illicit enrichment must have the right to rebut the allegations and to show that any wealth they possess was legally obtained and that they did not breach the spirit of regulations covering the conduct of public officials.

But while these investigations take place, it would not be right for any of their subjects to be in positions of direct influence over public policy that might impact their own cases, or more generally, how the State responds to issues of corruption. Neither, perhaps, should they be in positions of control over public resources or to preside in matters where public trust is paramount.

Put another way, any lawmaker who has been made aware by the Integrity Commission that he or she is under investigation for illicit enrichment should, as this newspaper suggested previously, recuse Themselves from any parliamentary committee that has oversight of the IC or from involvement in any matter relating to legislation thereto. Anyone who is a minister should take a leave of absence from his job.

At the same time, the Government should, as a matter of urgency, table in Parliament a ministry paper on actions taken with respect to recommendations by the IC in its investigation reports where what is proposed requires administrative procedures rather than legal interventions by independent law-enforcement agencies. This report should cover the period since the IC’s launch in 2018.

BECOME POLICY

Indeed, it should become policy that within three months of the tabling of an IC investigation report that contains recommendations for administrative sanctions against public officials, the Office of the Prime Minister should table in Parliament a report of what has been done. In cases where the implementation of the recommendations requires more time, that report should say so and provide timelines towards its completion.

In instances where recommendations are rejected, that, too, should be reported upon, with reasons given for the decision.

In its 2023-24 annual report, recently tabled in Parliament, the Integrity Commission disclosed that two legislators came under investigation for illicit enrichment during the review period. The commission later clarified that these were in addition to six flagged in its report of a year ago. The People’s National Party (PNP), the parliamentary Opposition, insisted that none of the parliamentarians under investigation are its members.

If, indeed, the Opposition’s claim is true, the obvious conclusion is that all the legislators being probed are from the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Some could be members of the Cabinet.

Last year, Prime Minister Andrew Holness said that he was told by members of the JLP, who had been asked, that they had not been informed by the IC of being investigated. The prime minister, however, was far from definitive that he had canvassed all 62 of his party’s legislators - 49 in the House of Representatives and 13 in the Senate.

The fact of these investigations, and the need for moral ‘voluntary’ action by the people involved – even if that requires a nudge by their leader(s) – is significant on two fronts.

NO SMALL MATTER

First, illicit enrichment, which falls under the island’s Corruption Prevention Act, is no small matter.

However, Section 14 (1) (b) of the law makes it clear that a public servant also commits an act of corruption if “in the performance of his public functions does any act or omits to do any act for the purpose of obtaining any illicit benefit for himself or any other person”.

The law prescribes that public servants who own assets disproportionate to their known lawful earnings, and cannot show how they came by the wealth, “shall be liable to prosecution for the offence of illicit enrichment”.

Among the tests for a breach of the law is whether a public servant “in the performance of his public functions does any act or omits to do any act for the purpose of obtaining any illicit benefit for himself or any other person”.

Conviction for a first offence in a parish court could lead to a fine of up to J$1 million or being sent to prison for as much as two years, or both. The fine, if convicted in a circuit court, might be as high as J$5 million and up to five years in jail.

Under the Integrity Commission Act, the IC cannot comment on these investigations or even acknowledge that any such probe has been opened except in the context of a report on the outcome tabled in Parliament. The public knows the bare bones of existing cases only because of their tabulation among the IC’s work for the previous year.

Citizens’ right to trust in public officials is compromised if officials who may have abused their positions continue, in the shroud of darkness, to hold sway over public resources.

Obviously, not all persons who face accusations are guilty. Many are vindicated.

But the fact of their temporary loss of office, or embarrassment, has to be balanced against the public good of ensuring trust in the institutions of government and good governance.

Further, as noted, not all IC investigative matters rise to the level of criminal offences. Some require administrative action. Citizens should know how those, too, play out.