Parliamentary committee debates public disclosure of Integrity Commission probe

Members of the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee of Parliament and the leadership of the anti-corruption body on Tuesday debated whether a declarant who is being investigated by the entity can go public about the probe or is restricted by Section 53(3), commonly referred to as the gag clause.

Section 53(3) of the Integrity Commission states that “Until the tabling in Parliament of a report under Section 36, all matters under investigation by the Director of investigation or any other person involved in such investigation shall be kept confidential, and no report or public statement shall be made by the Commission or any other person in relation to the initiation or conduct of an investigation under this Act”.

Member of the oversight committee Julian Robinson quizzed chairman of the Integrity Commission, retired Justice Seymour Panton, on a comment he made in the latest annual report.

Panton had said there was nothing to prevent declarants under investigation from speaking about the matter publicly.

Responding, Panton reiterated: “In my opinion, a declarant can always speak about his or her situation at any time – that is my view of the law.”

Continuing, the chairman said: “I can't see how I am involved in a situation and I cannot speak about it – that is my interpretation of the law. Although I think I am right, it does not follow that I am right.”

Government lawmaker and oversight committee member Pearnel Charles Jr sought an interpretation of Section 53(3) from anti-corruption agency's executive director Greg Christie.

He wanted Christie to indicate whether a declarant under investigation was restricted under the law from speaking about it in public.  

However, Christie said if there are flaws in the law that created different interpretations it is a matter for the Parliament to address.

He said “that hat can't be placed on the Integrity Commission's head”.

He reasoned that it is the responsibility of the country's lawmakers to make clear laws.

Christie said it was a matter for the Parliament to deal with and not the commission.

But Charles Jr insisted that it was appropriate to ask the executive director to interpret the law that directs his function.

The Government lawmaker accused Christie of giving an inappropriate response.

Committee member Phillip Paulwell intervened and argued that as a legislator who debated and passed the Integrity Commission Act he recalled that the intention of the gag clause was to secure the privacy of persons under probe.

However, he argued that the individual being investigated can “waive that secrecy anytime” by saying, 'I am being investigated and here are the facts'.”

But Charles Jr refused to relent as he pressed Christie to provide an interpretation of the gag clause in relation to someone who is under investigation.

The executive director questioned what was the mischief that the provision had intended to address.

“Was the mischief intended to deal with members of the commission speaking about the matter while it is under investigation or as the chairman said, 'was it to extend as far as to the person who is the subject of the matter'. Is he too prohibited from speaking? Christie asked. 

“It stands to reason that the chairman is correct in his assessment,” he concluded.

- Edmond Campbell

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.