Ambraee Houslin’s recent column on the proposed NaRRA legislation makes a case that will sound appealing to many Jamaicans frustrated by bureaucracy and slow project delivery. But beneath the promise of efficiency lies a far more troubling reality: NaRRA, in its present form, risks dismantling key safeguards that protect public funds and uphold good governance.

At its core, the argument advanced in support of NaRRA is that Jamaica must “cut red tape” to accelerate development. That is a false choice. The real issue is not whether we can act quickly, but whether we can do so responsibly. History—both locally and globally—has shown that when oversight is weakened in the name of speed, the result is not efficiency, but waste, abuse, and, too often, corruption.

NaRRA’s sweeping provisions concentrate extraordinary discretionary power in the hands of a few, while bypassing established procurement rules, transparency mechanisms, and independent scrutiny. These are not incidental features of governance; they are its backbone. Procurement guidelines, environmental checks, and parliamentary oversight exist precisely because public money must be protected from misuse and political interference. To sidestep them is to invite the very problems they were designed to prevent.

Proponents argue that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Yet even in times of crisis, mature democracies strengthen accountability—they do not abandon it. Expediency cannot become a permanent governing philosophy. Once these guardrails are removed or weakened, restoring them becomes politically difficult, if not impossible.

There is also a deeper principle at stake. Good governance is not measured solely by how quickly a government can execute projects, but by how transparently and fairly it does so. Jamaicans are not merely stakeholders in development; they are the owners of the public purse. They have a right to know how decisions are made, who benefits, and whether value for money is achieved.

If the concern is inefficiency in the current system, then the solution lies in reforming and strengthening institutions—not circumventing them. Streamlining approvals, digitizing processes, and improving public sector capacity are legitimate and necessary reforms. But creating a parallel framework that operates with reduced scrutiny is not reform; it is regression.

The danger with NaRRA is not theoretical. It sets a precedent that accountability can be traded away whenever it becomes inconvenient. That is a slippery slope Jamaica cannot afford. Today it may be justified in the name of development; tomorrow, it could be invoked for less defensible purposes.

Jamaica’s development must be both timely and principled. We do not have to choose between progress and probity. In fact, sustainable progress depends on it. Weakening accountability for the sake of expediency is not just risky—it undermines public trust and the very foundation of democratic governance.

We should be wary of any law that asks us to sacrifice transparency today for promises of efficiency tomorrow. The country deserves better than that bargain.

See Link: Ambraee Houslin | NaRRA is not a risk to Jamaica’s democracy – delay is.

[email protected]