THE Integrity Commission (IC) has renewed calls for Parliament to strengthen the law governing the body, warning that legislative weaknesses are hindering its ability to effectively carry out its mandate amid continued debate over the agency’s powers and independence.
“It’s a new piece of legislation and, as you can all see unfolding in Jamaica, it has its kinks, and hopefully the legislators will pay some attention to strengthening the Integrity Commission Act because that is extremely important. It’s an institution that I believe should not in any way, shape, or form be diluted,” IC Executive Director Craig Beresford argued at a press conference ahead of the 12th Annual Commonwealth Caribbean Association of Integrity Commissions and Anti-Corruption Bodies (CCAICAB) Conference being hosted by Jamaica from June 1 to 4 at ROK Hotel in downtown Kingston.
Beresford’s appeal comes at a time when the IC remains at the centre of public and political debate, particularly over provisions in the Integrity Commission Act that restrict what the agency can publicly disclose about ongoing investigations and the broader question of whether the legislation gives the body sufficient authority to fulfil its anti-corruption mandate.
The Integrity Commission was established in 2018 through legislation that merged several oversight bodies into a single anti-corruption agency responsible for investigating corruption, monitoring the financial declarations of public officials, and promoting integrity in public life.
However, since its creation the commission has repeatedly argued that certain provisions of the law have limited its effectiveness. The agency has also made a number of recommendations to Parliament through its annual reports, including about strengthening its independence and investigative processes.
Beresford indicated that additional recommendations could soon be forthcoming.
“Over the last, I’d say, five years, we have made certain recommendations to Parliament with respect to strengthening areas with respect to our investigation processes. Issues concerning our very independence, how that can be strengthened, is something that we have advanced, and then we have to also consider the new and emerging issues and challenges that we face now. A lot of the problems that we have, Parliament needs to act to ensure that it does not continue,” he said.
Without outlining specific legislative changes, Beresford suggested that recent developments involving the commission had exposed weaknesses that lawmakers should address.
“We can’t have an Integrity Commission that is established to do what it is expected to do, based on the legislation, and then we’re prevented from doing it effectively — so it’s really analysing the problems as they manifest themselves, and seeing how best we can fix those problems. And you will notice I have not been too specific — and that is intentional — but we do have recommendations in our annual reports, and I can assure you there will be more recommendations coming now, based on what we see happening,” he added.
One of the most contentious issues surrounding the Integrity Commission Act remains the so-called gag clause, which prohibits the commission from publicly discussing investigations before reports are formally tabled in Parliament.
The provision has generated significant debate in recent years, with critics arguing that it limits transparency and prevents the commission from correcting misinformation or explaining aspects of its work when matters become the subject of intense public discussion.
During the press conference the issue was raised with Dr Roger Koranteng, adviser and head of public sector governance at the Commonwealth Secretariat, who was asked whether similar restrictions exist in other anti-corruption regimes across the Commonwealth.
“The gag clause, as you mentioned, is always part of the Commonwealth tradition or the UK tradition, and it’s for a good reason,” he said.
He argued that the restrictions are intended to protect the reputation of individuals who may be under investigation but have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.
“You see, when somebody is under investigation that doesn’t mean that the person has been convicted, and you are talking about people’s integrity, what they have built for years. So when you are investigating the person I think it’s important to maintain that reputation of that person, because once it gets out there, and in the event that the person was not found culpable, what have you done to that reputation that you have built over 30 years, 20 years?” Koranteng said.
He noted, though, that some jurisdictions provide mechanisms for the courts to permit disclosure where there is sufficient public interest.
“However, if individual anti-corruption agents or [the] Integrity Commission think that that gag clause should be lifted, again, there is a provision for them to go to court for the court to lift it. I’ve seen it in various countries, particularly the developed countries like Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, where they protect the gag. But sometimes the court can allow you to lift it,” he said.
Syndicated from Jamaica Observer · originally published .
Legal context · powered by Jurifi
Get the legal angle on this story. Pick a prompt and Jurifi's AI will explain it using Jamaican law.
AI replies are based on Jamaican law via Jurifi. Not legal advice.