Chang and Smith clash over Integrity Commission track record, gag clause

Political commentators Kevin O’Brien Chang and former House Speaker Lloyd B. Smith sparred on CVM’s Lead Story Prime on Tuesday night over the Integrity Commission’s performance, after the commission’s chairman used the annual report to flag the volume of court cases dragging the agency into litigation.

Host Tyrone Reed framed the exchange around the tabling of Integrity Commission reports in Parliament, noting opposition unease over how parliamentary officers have handled the annual report and related documents. The chairman’s remarks questioned whether funds spent defending the commission in court would be better directed at investigations and other statutory duties.

Smith said rapid resort to injunctions and judicial review can function as a stalling tactic. He argued for a specialised court pathway so Integrity Commission matters can be resolved quickly, warning that once a report surfaces and an investigation becomes known, rumour can damage reputations before any charge is laid, while the public waits too long for clear answers.

On illicit enrichment figures cited in the report, Smith said the commission should largely get the benefit of the doubt that it has done due diligence, but he repeated his concern about slow timelines: back-and-forth litigation can stretch for years as speculation fills the gap.

Reed raised criticism of the so-called gag clause, under which the public often does not learn who is under investigation, leaving the political class under a general cloud of suspicion. Smith said the issue has come before Parliament before and urged that the restriction be lifted so the commission can identify those being investigated and the nature of the allegations, arguing secrecy feeds mistrust more than it protects fairness.

When audio problems eased, Chang delivered a sharper verdict. He said the commission costs about $2 billion a year yet has produced no charges or convictions against a Jamaican politician since 1990 — some 36 years — and asked what value taxpayers are receiving. He cited prolonged court fights, including a case involving Ian Hayles dating to 2017 that was resolved years later, and said subsequent action expected from the commission has not materialised. Chang blamed both the Jamaica Labour Party and the People’s National Party for failing to fix the system, noting even the prime minister has sued the commission rather than drive legislative change, and said the public perceives a shared interest in ensuring no politician is charged.

Pressed on whether the agency has failed or merely offers poor value, Chang said it is failing now and challenged critics to name a single major accomplishment. Smith partly agreed that the record is weak, but stressed the commission is a creature of Parliament: if it is underperforming, lawmakers share responsibility for how it was structured and how political pressure has battered it. He rejected the idea that it has failed totally, while acknowledging a strong feeling among some Jamaica Labour Party supporters that the commission is anti-government.

Asked why no parliamentarian has been jailed in more than three decades, Smith said one possibility is that investigators have not built airtight cases; another is that Parliament must restructure and strengthen the body and create faster routes outside routine court calendars so prosecutions of senior officials are not left in limbo while reputations are damaged. Reed closed the segment saying both guests should return for a deeper follow-up.