The Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP) notes by way of a Gleaner report, that the Government of Jamaica through its Minister of Justice, Delroy Chuck, has cautioned the country against speculations on the nature of the illicit enrichment for which six lawmakers are currently being investigated by the State’s anti-corruption agency, the Integrity Commission.

The Gleaner also shared the minister’s view that in addition to the public not knowing the nature of the investigation into the illicit enrichment, he suggested that there might very well be an “easy explanation as to how they [the lawmakers] came by the property” in question.

It is JAMP’s understanding however, that the six lawmakers have already been provided an opportunity to explain the source of the assets that are in their possession and it is their inability to provide a satisfactory explanation that has led to the matter being referred to the Director of Investigation.

To be clear, as per Section 42 and 43 of the Act, the Director of Information of Complaints is responsible for receiving and assessing the declarations made by parliamentarians and public officials. Strictly speaking, in the domain of the Integrity Commission, the process of evaluating and assessing the validity of the declarations are not deemed “investigations”. It is only when the Director has exhausted his efforts to certify the declarations and has not been put in a position to do so by the declarant, that a case is forwarded to the Director of Investigation for the commencement of an actual investigation under Section 46.

The public should also note that Jamaica’s Corruption Prevention Act identifies different kinds of corruption and some do not involve financial gain. However, illicit enrichment is specifically concerned with a public official or parliamentarian utilising their position of power for their financial benefit, gain or advantage.

It is of crucial importance that the public is made to understand the operations of the Integrity Commission. One way that allows for such, are the sittings of the Parliamentary Oversight Committee whose very mandate includes “monitoring and reviewing the performance of the functions of the Integrity Commission” and “assessing the effectiveness of the Integrity Commission and the appropriateness of its procedures”.

We do support the Minister of Justice’s concern for damaging speculations.

However, JAMP believes that the most effective means of suppressing speculation is to educate Jamaicans on the operations of the Integrity Commission prior to publication of reports on actual cases. Trying to correct wrong impressions after the fact is more injurious to our officials.

We therefore recommend that the Parliamentary Oversight Committee for the Integrity Commission be intentional at its upcoming sittings about unpacking the steps and stages that are taken by the commission in executing its mandate.

Based on the nature of existing speculations, we ask that particular attention to be paid to explaining the communication between the commission and those that are the subjects of investigations and those that experience any difficulties in being cleared or certified by the Commission.