Speaker urged to come clean in IC reports rigmarole

Former National Integrity Action (NIA) head Professor Trevor Munroe wants House Speaker Juliet Holness to tell the country today the mischief she was seeking to correct by suspending the tabling of at least two reports from the Integrity Commission (IC) upon submission, despite guidance from the attorney general that the long-held practice was not inconsistent with the law or parliamentary rules.

At the same time, Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal Executive Director Jeanette Calder is urging the Speaker to share the specific jurisdictions she consulted to get advice that seemingly helped to inform her ruling last week.

Calder is asking Holness to name “one other jurisdiction where members of parliament have to wait on a subcommittee and their findings to then have access to a report that comes to Parliament.

“She can eat her cake and have it because the subcommittee, it can be sent to them the same day that it is tabled. There doesn’t have to be any delay between Parliament receiving it and tabling and the oversight committee getting it,” she contended.

The Speaker told members of the Lower House last week that special reports and annual reports from the IC, when submitted to Parliament, would be sent to the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee for consideration and report – a clear departure from previous arrangements.

She also indicated that reports from the director of investigations submitted under Section 54(4) of the Integrity Commission Act would be tabled as soon as possible and then referred to the oversight committee. Further, she said that a report made on the request of Parliament under Section 36(1) of the said act would be tabled as soon as possible and then referred to the committee.

Avoid public speculation

In a Gleaner interview, Munroe stressed that to avoid public speculation and in the interest of transparency, the parliamentary referee is obliged to indicate to the country why she has shelved parliamentary practice which did no harm to the law or rules of Parliament.

He indicated that it was important that an explanation be given so that the public and Parliament may judge whether the evil she is seeking to correct exceeds the mischief that is occasioned by delay and, consequently, speculation based on lack of information.

Calder also raised questions on the matter, arguing that the attorney general’s opinion was not prescriptive and, therefore, was left for the Parliament and the Speaker to decide.

And the parliamentary legal counsel stated that the Integrity Commission Act and the Standing Orders “are silent on the issue at hand and therefore [found] that reports from the IC may be submitted to the Integrity Oversight Committee either before or after tabling in Parliament”.

In this regard, Calder said she wanted to know “what guided the Speaker to say these two will be tabled, but these two won’t. It’s odd.”

The Speaker’s comment last week that all reports from the IC would be reviewed by officers of the House before they are tabled has also triggered questions from at least one civil society group.

Calder is questioning whether the parliamentary staff would read the reports before they are tabled. She said it was not clear if that reference included the clerk to the Houses of Parliament, the deputy clerk and the parliamentary legislative counsel.

Holness admitted last week that neither she nor the president of the Senate can make changes to reports submitted by the IC.

However, she suggested that it would be irresponsible to place something before Parliament that she did not first peruse.

In a release yesterday, the NIA said it was disappointed in the Speaker’s position and urged a reversal.

Former Speaker Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert sought the opinion of the attorney general in July after modifying the longstanding practice in relation to the tabling of IC reports.

The NIA also urged Holness to table the attorney general’s opinion without further delay, even though it is non-binding.

editorial@gleanerjm.com