The Andrew Holness-led Government has made significant inroads in tackling corruption in Jamaica, despite the island dropping one place in the recently released Corruption Perception Index. 

Robert Nesta Morgan, minister without portfolio with responsibility for Information in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), this morning (February 9) contested what he called a ‘perception nuance’ as he rejected Transparency International’s recent ranking of Jamaica as the fifth-most corrupt country in the Caribbean.

Morgan, speaking at a post-Cabinet press briefing, also did not ascribe to Transparency International’s findings in its report that Jamaican politicians were ‘significantly resistant to corruption reforms’.

• READ: Jamaican politicians resisting anti-corruption reforms, says Transparency International

According to him, the Holness administration’s track record since 2016 paints an entirely different scenario.

“You asked me about the score, based on that index. Then you went on to conclude that Jamaica is the fifth-most corrupt country in the region but how can a perception then reach a conclusion like that?” the minister began.

Going at length to rephrase the statement to suit his palate, Morgan added that, based on Transparency International’s annual index, “Jamaica is perceived as the fifth-most corrupt country in the region”.

“We can look at the history…between 2016 and now, I think Jamaica has seen the most significant transformation from a legislative [and] funding perspective of our anti-corruption institutions,” Morgan continued.

As examples of this, the minister cited the 2017 Integrity Commission Act and Government efforts to establish an independent body to oversee the Integrity Commission. 

Additionally, Morgan said the commission enjoys the most invariable period of Government-backed financing to tackle the issue of corruption.

“We have consistently, as was admitted by the commission, continued to provide the funding for the [Integrity] Commission to do their work. There has been no hindrance by the Government of any anti-corruption investigation by any constituted authority,” he said.

“You would also note that significant work has been done to empower MOCA (Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency) as an independent entity and that came through Parliament,” Morgan asserted further.

From where he sits among the Government majority in the House of Representatives, Morgan said he had not “seen any resistance by any Member of Parliament, at least on the Government side, in the fight against corruption”.

Adversely, he said he had observed that, based on the current legal parameters, good governance and transparency recommendations to Gordon House do not automatically warrant ‘immediate acceptance’ as the Government can choose to merely assess the suggestions. 

“What I see is that as the law stipulates, entities are empowered to make recommendations and the Parliament of Jamaica, which is elected by the citizens democratically, has the power to assess those recommendations,” Morgan explained. 

“So, if it is someone makes a recommendation and the duly elected Parliament of Jamaica does not agree with all the recommendations, that cannot then be perceived as being a hindrance in the fight against corruption. Because, what it would then suggest, [is] that any entity in Jamaica that makes a recommendation to the Parliament, [means] Parliament is obligated to accept that recommendation,” he posited.

“I do not know, in a democratic society, if that would be a reasonable conclusion to make. Parliament has a committee that accepts recommendations, analyse [them], consults with other members of the House, citizens, civil society groups and then eventually will come to a reasonable conclusion whether to accept the recommendations or not,” Morgan argued, adding, “I see no evidence of hindrance, at least under this administration.”