IC facing a crossroads

The Integrity Commission, Jamaica's premier anti-corruption watchdog, could soon face significant leadership changes, with the terms of six top officials set to expire between February and July 2025.

The seven-year terms for two commissioners – Chairman Justice Seymour Panton and Eric Crawford – will end in February 2025. Justice Panton, a retired president of the Court of Appeal, and Crawford, a chartered account, are original commissioners, having been appointed on February 26, 2018, the same year the agency started operations. Panton became chairman in 2019.

Executive Director Greg Christie, a lawyer and former contractor general who leads the day-to-day operations of the commission, was sworn into office on May 18, 2020. His five-year tenure is set to expire next year.

Three other directors are also nearing the end of their terms. They are Director of Corruption Prosecution Keisha Prince-Kameka, who was sworn in on March 24, 2020; Kevon Stephenson, the director of investigation, who was sworn in on May 18, 2020; and Craig Beresford, who took his oath on July 14, 2020, as director of information and complaints.

They are all eligible for reappointment.

Justice Panton confirmed that his tenure would end on February 25 but declined to say whether he is interested in serving another term.

“It would be inappropriate for me to disclose my intention or wish as regards reappointment before communicating same to His Excellency the Governor General,” he said in a response to Sunday Gleaner queries on December 3.

Asked to assess his tenure and chairmanship, Panton said any assessment of the commission's performance “will only be done after I have left the commission”.

In response to questions about whether the four directors had expressed interest in continuing, Panton stated, “There will be no comment at this time re the tenure of any commissioner or director.”

The prospect of leadership changes gained further attention on Friday after Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson disclosed a message he had sent at the commission's request, but the commission rejected it as “libelous”. The senator dismissed the allegation, arguing that he had been “gagged”.

“It would be a significant boost to the perceived fairness and the anti-corruption fight in Jamaica should the current composition of the Integrity Commission be reconstructed,” Tavares-Finson read from the statement that was done for a newspaper supplement to mark International Anti-Corruption Day last Monday. “It is disappointing that the Integrity Commission in its current dispensation is perceived across major sections of the Jamaican society as having lost credibility.”

He criticised the commission's credibility, claiming that it had suffered a “near-mortal blow”, citing the “slow rate” at which issues were addressed and alleged “anti-government” and “inflammatory” comments made by the commission's leadership.

Opposition Leader Mark Golding has defended the commission, describing Tavares-Finson's comments as “unfortunate” and “wholly inappropriate”.

“ … It comments adversely – and, in my view, very unfairly – on specific individuals at the commission in ways which may well not be factual,” he told The Sunday Gleaner.

According to Golding, the senate president's statement was a “continuation of the unfortunate pattern of attacks on the commission from various JLP (Jamaica Labour Party) politicians”.

The tensions reflect an ongoing friction between parliamentarians and the commission, particularly members of the Andrew Holness administration, over issues such as the handling of a 2023 report involving Holness, investigations into lawmakers' alleged illicit enrichment, and a probe into the prime minister's finances.

PARTISAN ACCUSATIONS REBUFFED

Public utterances from Opposition People's National Party officials about unreleased reports and the publication of Golding's income filings on the day of the JLP's annual conference have invited questions of partisan work, allegations the commission has strongly rejected.

Last week, following the release of an IC report that mentioned him, Holness asserted that there was a “transparent attempt” to attack his reputation.

The commission has not kept silent, however, with Chairman Panton leading its defence. He declared in September that the anti-corruption agency would not be frightened by threats.

“I will not be intimidated by any of them,” he said. “It is clear to me, and until I see evidence to the contrary, there are members [politicians] ... who are saying things and doing things that are causing their supporters ... to be acting in the way they are doing by threatening and libelling members of the commission as well as employees of the commission.”

Edmund Bartlett, who chairs Parliament's Integrity Commission Oversight Committee, said the next six months “will be an interesting period for the commission”.

“This, in fact, would represent a significant shift in terms of personnel arrangements, if, indeed, the outcomes are [that] individuals choose to remain or to leave the organisation,” said Bartlett. “The Integrity Commission is a very important institution in our governance structure and particularly in the area of transparent governance.”

One of the more vocal IC critics in the administration, Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, said he is focused on how the commission can improve its work.

“I have no problem with personnel,” said Chuck, noting that he supported Panton's appointment and had no regrets.

“My concern is we need to focus properly on getting corruption reduced in the country. And what is coming out now from the IC, it is fuelling the perception of corruption rather than reducing the perception of corruption,” he alleged.

Chuck believes that the publication of reports that do not have recommendations for criminal charges is partly to be blamed.

“Where, in other cases, the matters have been sent to court, I have no difficulty, but I cannot, cannot understand why you're publishing reports when the reports are saying that the person you are investigating has done nothing wrong!

“The perception of corruption is even worse than corruption itself,” added Chuck, who, last year, declared in Parliament that the commission had no “integrity”.

The Integrity Commission Act mandates the release of reports to Parliament if the director of investigation finds reasonable grounds to suspect breaches of conduct or corruption. The law also requires the public exoneration of persons found to have done nothing wrong following an investigation unless the person has asked the commission not to do so.

LESS CRITICAL CHORD

Golding, whose party has used the illicit enrichment probes as a political hammer, struck a less critical chord, noting that the six-year-old commission is at “an important juncture in its short history”.

Panton should be reappointed chairman, along with Crawford, the other commissioner whose tenure is due to end next year, he said.

“The chairman of the commission … has been resolute and courageous in the face of attacks in various forms from some politicians who are intent on undermining the strength and effectiveness of the commission,” Golding told The Sunday Gleaner.

The opposition leader said the directors who face renewal should also be kept on because it is “in the interests of institutional stability and continuity in the maturation of this young but critical institution.

“The directors have shown commitment to their work and have performed to a satisfactory standard in their respective roles,” he said.

Peter Bunting, a senior official in Mark Golding's party, strongly criticised the IC's 2022 gun permit report accusing him of misconduct as security minister. He refused to sign its code of conduct, but after a 2023 review exonerated him, he said his confidence was restored. 

Golding had also argued that the IC's handling of communications surrounding a 2023 report on the prime minister was "problematic". The IC was accused of delaying the tabling of a report that ruled out charges against Holness. In 2023, Ian Hayles, a PNP vice-president, dismissed a damning report, whose release he fought against, as a "fishing expedition". 

Questions such as whether current officials would be willing to stay on, given the “natural pressure” of the job, combined with threats through “malicious and unfounded” allegations against them; who would step forward to replace them under such conditions; and the potential for political interference in appointments given the posture of some lawmakers must be pondered, argued Jeanette Calder, executive director of the Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal.

“The public excoriation and flagellation meted out to both commissioners and the directors do not make a good case for finding solid replacements,” she said. “If persons choose to move on and/or if renewals are not offered to some or any, this is a time to pay close attention.”

The five-member commission, the final decision-making authority of the organisation, comprises the auditor general, who is a commissioner by law, and four others who are appointed by the governor general “after consultation” with the prime minister and the opposition leader, according to the Integrity Commission Act. An appointed commissioner can serve up to seven years and “may” be eligible for reappointment.

Directors, who head divisions and report on their substantive functions to the commissioners, have a tenure of five years and may also be eligible for reappointment.

The next few months could prove tricky, especially given Holness' involvement in appointing new commissioners for an agency that he has brought to court for alleged unfairness in investigating his finances.

“That could be ticklish,” said a member of the administration, speaking on condition of anonymity. “He (Holness) has to defend himself, of course; yet he's entitled to be consulted under the law. What will the public think?”

'After consultation' is fundamentally different from 'after advice', explained Dr Lloyd Barnett, a respected lawyer and leading scholar on constitutional law in Jamaica.

“'Advice' in our law means when advice is given, he (governor general) has no discretion; he has to implement it. When it's 'after consultation', usually, it is something he has initiative to take and then he consults and makes a decision, and it depends on the terms of the law and the Constitution whether he makes the final decision,” Barnett told The Sunday Gleaner. “If it is one of those things in which he acts on his discretion after consultation, then he wouldn't be bound to follow what any particular person says.”

Two of the four appointed commissioners must be retired judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. The law also stipulates that the chairman, who is appointed solely at the governor general's discretion, “shall” be a retired judge.

If Justice Panton leaves, that would leave Justice Lloyd Hibbert as the only retired judge serving as commissioner. The fifth commissioner is retired banker and business and leadership consultant H. Wayne Powell, who was appointed in March 2020.

The law says the governor general “shall” appoint the executive director and the other directors, “acting on the recommendation of the commission”.

King's House acknowledged Sunday Gleaner questions on whether the governor general had started the reappointment process but said it did not “guarantee the questions will be answered”.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com