Mitchell lashes oversight body for failing to keep IC in line

Former Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) President Howard Mitchell has criticised the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee, asserting that the parliamentary group has been poor at holding the anti-corruption body accountable.

Mitchell’s criticism coincides with a fresh round of sparring between Government lawmakers and the Integrity Commission (IC).

The business executive said while the commission has done significant sweat work and has had some minor convictions, mostly of civil servants or public officials, it is not clear that its work product has gone in the way modern-day investigative forces do.

“It has done its work but I would want it to be more focused, more efficient and perhaps not as pompous in conducting activities. I think they have done a better job at drawing attention to corruption than actually bringing people to account,” said Mitchell, a retired attorney-at-law.

He said those best placed to assess this are members of the oversight committee but noted that some have, instead, resorted to attacks and public spats with the body.

“All they have done is defended their wicket and defended the gag clause rather than objectively assessing performance. This narrow self-interest and protective interest of Parliament, it shows up that maybe how we have structured the anti-corruption devices is possibly not the best way because we don’t know who is watching the watchman,” he said.

FEW PROSECUTIONS

Mitchell said the commission has done significant work, producing investigation and special reports, but that those have not transitioned into equivalent successful prosecutorial outcomes.

He said the commission has not delivered on those expectations.

He noted that the commission, up to 2024, tabled 38 reports, 31 of which involved public servants. Seven were political figures – one councillor, one former member of parliament and five parliamentarians.

Mitchell added that four from the latter group were charged.

“Instead of running around and screaming, what you should be saying is that you have had 10 matters involving politicians and, aside from maybe a minor slap on the wrist, you haven’t found any of this great corruption that [the commission] is talking about. That is what they should be saying rather than bawling about political bias.

“We need that kind of objective assessment of the work of the commission and it really should be done by the oversight committee. They are not doing their jobs,” Mitchell asserted.

INFORMATION SQUABBLE

Last week, Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, a member of the oversight committee, was rebuked by IC chairman, retired Justice Seymour Panton, after he disclosed that he advised his parliamentary colleagues not to comply with a critical provision in the Integrity Commission Act (ICA) that requires them to furnish information about their spouses’ earnings to the anti-corruption body.

Panton said for Chuck to advise his colleagues to break the law “may well be itself an offence” and questioned what example he was setting for public officers.

The commission also rapped legislator Juliet Cuthbert Flynn, who questioned on social media why she had to supply the information of her spouse.

On the matter of contract renewals, with the terms of six top officials at the IC set to expire between February and July this year, Mitchell said the process must be empirical.

“Some of them (directors) perhaps need to put a governor on their mouths and be more professional. But I think the question of whether or not a contract should be renewed shouldn’t depend solely on the perception of the public or a few public commentators. It should be an empirical process that takes place at the workplace. The parliamentary oversight committee should have input in that,” he said.

Further, Mitchell said there isn’t a need for the restructuring of the commission but noted that its governing act needs to be amended.

He was firm that the process should not occur in an election year and should not take place in a climate of tribalism and partisan behaviour.

“It should take place in professional circumstances with lawmakers, not rabble-rousers. I don’t think we should rush to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because the commission has offended a few quasi-rulers or pseudo kings,” said Mitchell.

Drilling down on his point about the need for amendments, he said gag clauses – one in Section 53 (3) and the other in Section 56 (1) – should be removed.

The gag clause in Section 53(3) of the ICA prohibits the commission from telling the public about its investigations before the relevant report of the investigation is tabled in Parliament.

Additionally, Section 56(1) of the ICA requires employees of the commission to treat all information, statutory declarations, government contracts, prescribed licences and all other matters that relate to any matter that is before the commission, as secret and confidential.

A breach of the foregoing constitutes a criminal offence that is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1 million or imprisonment not exceeding one year.

“I don’t think those should be there. And two, the process really seems convoluted because they operate in silos. The way it is now, it causes controversy and too much paranoid suspense and adds to the politically charged atmosphere that we continuously live in and the other point is that it should be that if a matter is referred to the DPP (director of public prosecutions) for prosecution, there should be a time limit on the DPP’s response,” he said.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com