Peter Espeut | Where there’s smoke …

It is an ancient folk saying that “where there’ smoke there’ fire”, but we chemists know that there are many ways to generate smoke without the need for a flame.

But often enough, when you see smoke there is a fire somewhere, and you will find it if you look hard enough.

In an effort to explain why it has been unable to certify the veracity of PM Holness’ assets and liabilities filings since 2019, last week Jamaica’s Integrity Commission (IC) issued a 171-page report detailing the “smoke” while clearly stating that, as yet, it has found no fire.

We hear that PM Holness either wholly or partly owns a number of registered companies (with others recently having been dissolved), is a director of certain charitable trusts, and operates 28 bank accounts. None of this is illegal or irregular.

The Integrity Commission reports that between 2020 and June 2023 there were over 3,600 transactions involving these accounts (averaging over four per business day) – deposits and withdrawals totalling over $473,000,000 and $427,000,000, respectively.

And yet these companies have filed with Jamaica’s tax authorities declarations of nil taxable income or expenses. This could be perfectly above board, and I think that it is reasonable for the Integrity Commission to refer this situation to the Financial Investigations Division (FID) and the country’s tax authorities for review. Once these agencies declare that there is nothing false or untoward about these declarations, transactions and accounts, PM Holness will be exonerated, and the naysayers will have to shut their mouths.

Once the dense smoke clears (and this whole scenario is quite nebulous) and no fire is found, the PM’s statutory declarations can be certified, and we can move on towards the general election without this cloud hanging over the leader of one of Jamaica’s major political parties.

MATURE DEMOCRACY

And Jamaica will have been publicly shown to be a mature democracy with the ability to thoroughly investigate the integrity of its political leaders.

Earlier this week, government members on the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee (ICOC) opposed the referral of the PM’s affairs to the FID so that he can be cleared. Why, I wonder?

And then certain ICOC members are reported to have said that the IC should be “mandated to certify the prime minister’s declaration, forthwith”. Who is authorised to issue such a mandate? I do not know why other government members of the IC did not immediately inform their errant colleague that Section 6(3) of the Integrity Commission Act states that, in the exercise of its powers and functions, the commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority other than the court, by way of judicial review.

And then there are threats to make changes to the powers of the IC. The fear is that the intention will be (in a sort of Trumpish move) to defang the IC to make it less able to detect and prosecute corruption.

In reality the powers of the IC need to be strengthened, and more transparency needs to be introduced into the process. The secrecy surrounding the work of the IC hampers its efforts to get at the truth. The gag clause needs to be repealed, so that the public can know which politicians are being investigated for illicit enrichment.

CRUCIAL RELEVANCE

This has immediate and crucial relevance.

Suppose – hypothetically you understand – one or more of the members of the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee (ICOC) from either party were to be among the illicit six or eight – under investigation for illicit enrichment; would it not be a profound conflict of interest for any such person to remain on the ICOC, to recommend changes to the law which might possibly get them off the hook?

If subsequently it should be found that one or more of the illicit eight are members of the ICOC and they have not recused themselves (by the way, no one has so far recused himself or herself), that conflict of interest would be corruption, and should disqualify such a person for seeking elected office ever again.

There is too much smoke surrounding the membership of the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee for my liking.

Questions of tax compliance are not the only unresolved issues surrounding the PM’s declarations. There are possible conflicts of interest surrounding his appointment of a business partner to certain government posts, and the use of charity funds to purchase personal assets. The IC still has not been provided with certain information, including the identities of some of the depositors to the bank accounts operated by PM Holness. Full exoneration will not have been achieved until these issues are also resolved.

Now in opposition, the People’s National Party (PNP) has railed against corruption, and repeatedly calls for the names of the illicit eight to be revealed, even though it is possible that PNP parliamentarians are among the eight. The PNP has not yet freed itself from the stench of political corruption, and its association with unsavoury elements. Until they publicly commit – once elected – to remove the gag clause, to have all asset declarations made public, and for the names of those who have government contracts to be published (as used to be the case), many will not take their posturing seriously.

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