Letter of the Day | A refreshing breath of accountability

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I recall that at the beginning of this year, the Integrity Commission (IC) came under severe criticism from certain members of the political directorate for its investigations into the statutory declarations of the country’s politicians. At that time, the statutory declarations of Prime Minister Andrew Holness remained uncertified, and there was news that six unnamed parliamentarians were being investigated for illicit enrichment.

Fast-forward seven months later and things have taken a very interesting turn, as the IC is again under scrutiny from those it was created to hold accountable – some of whom seem determined to discredit the IC because its roles and functions are seemingly now inimical to their interests.

However, what is very worrisome is that other public personalities have become increasingly vocal and critical of the IC, following the tabling of the report of the director of investigation into the statutory declarations of the prime minister in Parliament on September 17.

NO ONE IS EXEMPT

The director of investigation was detailed in his report, providing a traceable timeline of important correspondence that occurred between the IC and the prime minister. It seems, however, that in public discourse some persons are more critical of the IC and the director of investigation than they are of the revelations surrounding the prime minister’s financial affairs.

No one is exempt from scrutiny, and no one is above the law. We must be careful that we do not overcompensate in the absence of knowledge and create arguments that become a safe haven for persons of questionable character and conduct.

The thoroughness of the director of investigation must be applauded; but there are clear areas where it seems more could be done to unearth further information.

The director of investigation has identified areas that call for further probity by entities with which the IC has formed investigative partnership. Thus, while public discourse continues on the matter – a sign of a healthy, functional, engaged and engaging democracy – objectivity must be sought.

ALLOW FOR PROBITY, SCRUTINY

Unwarranted criticism of the IC will invariably inhibit transparency and probity. Public commentators and civil society groups should exercise great restraint against the urge to undertake any forensic analysis of the IC, aimed at highlighting deficiencies in the body. The current atmosphere is too politically polarised, and such efforts may do more harm than good.

It is equally important to note that the action of the IC in recommending that the TAJ and the FID further investigate certain financial affairs of the prime minister signals its belief that there remains great probative value in the matter.

The argument that the IC should proceed in certifying the PM’s declaration, given that its report should be final, and as it is inconclusive as to any wrongdoing by the prime minister, is absolutely ludicrous and absurd.

All attempts at misrepresenting the state of affairs and to manufacture a narrative that paints the IC in a bad light, as being on a “witch-hunt” for the prime minister, should be rubbished by well-thinking members of the society.

All acts and utterances aimed at inciting public unrest and to turn this matter into a political fiasco is reckless and dangerous.

Let us allow for probity and scrutiny to unveil that which it will; and in the interest of good governance, that which it must. There is no denying that in a country currently (globally) ranked at 69 out of 180 countries on the corruption index, it presents an opportunity for the society to breathe a refreshing breath of accountability.

JOSEPH P. WILLIS