Editorial | Clarify IC appointments

As was implied by his office, this newspaper appreciates that the governor general, Sir Patrick Allen, is not obliged to explain his actions – or inaction – to the public, unless he is specifically required to do so by the Constitution, or some other law.

Nonetheless, given the low level of trust most Jamaicans have in public officials, and that the overwhelming majority of citizens believe they live in a highly corrupt country, Sir Patrick would understand people’s concern at his seeming reticence in completing what would normally be considered a formality: the appointment of key, senior staff to fill vacancies at the Integrity Commission (IC).

The obvious questions with respect to the delay are whether it is merely a technical matter; whether the governor general has legitimate concerns over the recommendations sent to him by the commissioners; and, assuming the hold-up is deliberate, the legal grounds, if any, upon which he stands.

Such speculations are good for neither the office of the governor general nor the IC, especially against the backdrop of recent partisan efforts to undermine the commission and its work.

In that regard, if the delay is just a bureaucratic hiccup, Sir Patrick should immediately apply his signature and seal to the appointments. If there are real concerns, which he has been unable to resolve with the commissioners – and he genuinely feels a need to escalate the issue – he should say so. Merely keeping the appointments in a state of suspended animation is not helpful.

The IC is Jamaica’s premier anti-corruption body for public officials, including legislators. They file income, assets and liability statements annually with the commission, which certifies that their reported wealth is in line with legitimate income. The agency also undertakes other anti-corruption investigations.

Except for the auditor general, an ex officio member, the four other commissioners are appointed by the governor general at his discretion. Under the law, it is the commissioners who select the body’s executive divisional directors. These appointments, except in very narrow and limited circumstances – as this newspaper reads the law – are then rubber-stamped by the governor general.

Or, as Section 28(1) of the Integrity Commission Act puts it with respect to the executive director: “. .. there shall be an executive director of the commission who shall be appointed by the governor general, acting on the recommendation of the commission”.

NO CLEARLY STATED REASON FOR DELAY

The language of the law, at Section 30(4), is similar with respect to the division directors.

The proviso is that the people who are recommended for appointment to these positions are qualified for their jobs; people of integrity; are impartial; are capable of exercising due diligence; and have sound judgement. In the case of the executive director, the candidate’s credentials should make him or her also eligible for appointment as a commissioner.

Apart from the unrelenting flak it has taken from the ruling party’s legislators over more than two years because of negative reports against government officials (including one against Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness, which is being contested in court), the IC has this year faced an upheaval in staffing.

In the February to April period it replaced three commissioners – including the chairman, Seymour Panton, a retired president of the appeal court – whose term came to an end. It also lost its executive director; its director of corruption prosecution; and its director of information and complaints, whose terms ended.

People were acting in these positions. But under the IC law, the commissioners can only appoint staff to act for three months. One of these was Roneiph Lawrence, as director of corruption prosecution, whose stint was opposed by the governing party because of a relationship with the Oopposition People’s National Party (PNP) General Secretary, Dayton Campbell.

It has been ascertained that for at least two of the vacant/acting posts – executive director and director of corruption prosecution – permanent appointments were recommended more than three months ago, sufficient time to fill the vacancies when the temporary appointments lapsed. Up to the start of this week, the governor general had not approved the appointments.

There is no clearly stated reason for the delay, such as whether the competence, integrity and/or impartiality of the candidates was in question.

“His Excellence continues to be guided by legal advice,” Sir Patrick’s office told The Gleaner. “He remains steadfast in discharging his responsibilities with due regard for law, the Constitution, and the independence of all institutions concerned.”

According to Section 32 (2) of Jamaica’s Constitution, “ where the governor general is directed to exercise any function on the recommendation of any person or authority, he shall exercise that function in accordance with such recommendation”.

However, before he acts, he has the option to “ once refer that recommendation back for reconsideration by the person or authority concerned”. If a new recommendation is made, the Constitution suggests, the governor general then operates as if there is a reset with respect to the substituted candidate: “ the provisions of this subsection shall apply to that different recommendation as they apply to the original recommendation”.

The implication, therefore, is that if the proposer holds fast to the original recommendation, the original name goes forward, to avoid the pain otherwise of a potentially messy political or constitutional issue. And possibly to echoes of the Stephen Vasciannie affair in 2007 when the Public Service Commission was fired when it would not back down from its appointment of Professor Vasciannie as Jamaica’s solicitor general.