Editors' Forum | Ombudsman's office threatening free speech, says social scientist

While the Office of the Political Ombudsman (OPO) (Interim) Act, 2002 established the body as a commission of Parliament to conduct investigations into the actions and statements of politicians, it must be careful it is not abrogating, or infringing on, the rights to free speech of politicians.

That’s the assessment of social scientist Dr Christopher Charles, who told a Gleaner Editors’ Forum last week that in terms of how the office functions, he gets the impression that it is violating the right to free speech.

There are about 600 active politicians at the parochial and parliamentary levels.

Charles said that despite furore and public outcry, he had no issue with a number of statements by local politicians from the two main political parties that stirred controversy in recent times.

He said that while the role of the ombudsman's office was clear, he fears that in the throes of pursuing its mandate, it could at times be accused of overreaching and inadvertently could be infringing on the rights of politicians to exercise free speech.

The social scientist used a statement made in 2011 by West Portland Member of Parliament (MP) Daryl Vaz as an example. The MP had reportedly said that there were civil servants who were People's National Party (PNP) supporters, who were undermining the efforts of the then Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) administration, and that should the JLP win the general election of that year, he would “dig them out”.

Charles said he found no issue with the language used, although the OPO was called to investigate.

“The entire country was up in arms over that statement, but if what Vaz was saying is true, that civil servants ought to be neutral, and if they ought to be neutral and that they are found to be partial, then there are established procedures for action to be taken against them. So as far as I am concerned, he said nothing wrong. All I wanted to find out was if it is true and were there people undermining the JLP as civil servants on behalf of the PNP,” Charles said.

Further, he added that the statement would could have helped to cost the JLP the election “because people were upset and that that is what happens in a democracy”.

“If you say something and it may be inappropriate, the voters will punish you. So the larger policing issue, where a statement is not threatening nor is it inciting violence, is whether it is actually restricting the politician’s right of free speech,” reasoned Charles.

Using another example to shore up his point, Charles, a University of the West Indies senior lecturer, delved into a statement made earlier this year by MP Mikael Phillips, in which the PNP member said while addressing supporters, "When we touch road, Labourites affi tek weh demself.”

“For me, again, I saw nothing wrong with the statement, but he apologised because I think he, being a politician, is afraid of the backlash," Charles said. "I didn’t find that statement a problem. He was not inciting violence; the statement was not threatening anyone, but if you understand Patois, 'tek weh yourself' mean that it’s a voluntary act. When we touch road and campaigning and you realise how you losing, you [going to] disappear.

“Even now, I am dismayed as to why it became an issue where we are now acting as if we can take away the right to free speech of the politicians. We have to be careful. So yes, the Office of the Ombudsman is very important and it should investigate, but we have to be careful that we do not abrogate their rights to speak freely,” Charles said.

According to him, the advent of the OPO came about as a direct response to how politicians historically conducted themselves in terms of electoral violence, corruption, vote buying and so on, noting, however, that in terms of how the office functions, it gives the impression that it is violating the rights of politicians.

paul.clarke@gleanerjm.com