Leadership vacancies cripple IC’s work
Published:Sunday | October 12, 2025 | 12:11 AMEdmond Campbell - Senior Staff Reporter
The Integrity Commission (IC), Jamaica’s leading anti-corruption agency, has been operating without three of its top leaders for weeks – a development that could significantly undermine its ability to prevent, detect, and prosecute corruption.
As of last week, the crucial posts of executive director, director of corruption prosecution (DCP), and director of information and complaints remained vacant. These roles are central to enforcing the Integrity Commission Act (ICA) and ensuring the agency functions effectively.
The commission confirmed to The Sunday Gleaner that it had submitted recommendations to Governor General Sir Patrick Allen for appointments to the DCP and executive director posts.
While gaps in appointment earlier this year might have been linked to wider changes at the helm, including the chairmanship, a reliable source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Sunday Gleaner that the nomination for an executive director was submitted in July while the recommendation for the new DCP was made earlier. This means they were submitted in time for a smooth transition from the acting period to the new appointments.
Under the ICA, the commission is allowed to make temporary acting appointments for up to three months. Accordingly, an acting DCP was appointed on June 3, 2025, and an acting executive director on May 18, 2025. However, both terms are now past expiry, and the law bars extensions.
The previous DCP’s contract expired on March 31, 2025, the executive director’s on March 17, and the director of information and complaints’ on July 14. No permanent appointments have been made since.
The Sunday Gleaner asked King’s House why the appointments to the positions of DCP and executive director had not been confirmed. The Office of the Governor General declined to explain, stating that communication on such matters is confidential.
“His Excellency continues to be guided by legal advice. He remains steadfast in discharging his responsibilities with due regard for the law, the Constitution, and the independence of all institutions concerned,” King’s House said in a statement.
NO ROOM FOR DELAY
Mickel Jackson, executive director of Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), said the delay raises serious constitutional concerns.
She reasoned that if the commission made recommendations as far back as July 2025, the passage of more than three months prompts questions as to the reason for the governor general not effecting the appointments and whether the Head of State may be acting beyond or contrary to his constitutional and statutory authority – potentially ultra vires.
Jackson referenced Section 28(1) and Section 30(4) of the ICA, which state that the governor general shall appoint these officers on the Commission’s recommendation – language that leaves little room for discretionary refusal.
“The governor general has no discretion to refuse a valid nomination, acting as a ceremonial signatory. Any issue – if one exists and however reasonable – would require legal recourse, not rejection by way of prolonged delay,” she added.
She also pointed to Section 32(2) of the Constitution, which allows the governor general to refer a recommendation back for reconsideration once, but otherwise binds him to the commission’s advice.
Jackson is of the view that the intention of this power of reconsideration is confined to verifying critical eligibility (e.g., if the nominee lacks qualifications or has a clear conflict per Sections 28(3) and 30(6).
If the governor general has exercised his right to request reconsideration, the Commission may choose to reaffirm its nominee or submit a new one. But Jackson warned that prolonged silence or inaction without invoking Section 32(2) would “lack legal basis, raising concerns of unauthorised obstruction”.
However, she further argues that if the governor general has posited reasonable questions, the IC may, within its own discretion, provide answers to King’s House after making a recommendation, but it has no legal obligation to do so.
“If the governor general has concerns, he must articulate them legally via a written request for reconsideration under Section 32(2). Failure to do so risks a constitutional overstep, eroding public trust in an office sworn to uphold the rule of law,” said Jackson.
PROSECUTIONS IN LIMBO
The role of the director of corruption prosecution is pivotal. According to Section 34 of the ICA, the DCP is responsible for prosecuting acts of corruption, providing legal advice, and conducting all criminal proceedings under the Act – though still subject to oversight from the director of public prosecutions (DPP).
Further, the DCP has the task of providing legal advice to the commission on matters concerning acts of corruption and offences committed under the act.
In addition, Section 34(2) states that the DCP shall conduct all criminal proceedings in relation to the ICA.
An informed source revealed to The Sunday Gleaner that several court matters currently require the DCP’s involvement and leadership. Without a permanent DCP, prosecutions could stall.
Jackson also questioned the operational status of the office.
“Has another acting been so appointed given the three-month expiration on Mr Roneiph Lawrence’s temporary appointment? If there is no acting and certainly there is no executive director, this unsavoury situation has left the office in limbo,” she said.
Jackson wants to know if cases are lagging by the wayside, or have been referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Similarly, she said the absence of an executive director – who holds statutory oversight for coordinating the IC’s operations – further jeopardises strategic direction, leading the public to question the functionality of the body.