Editorial | Remove IC roadblocks

There may be reason to question the Integrity Commission’s (IC’s) framing of its complaint about the slow pace – and the consequences – of the Government of Jamaica’s efforts to designate more state bodies and agencies as “competent authorities”.
At a press conference last week, IC officials discussed the issue largely in the context of the commission’s inability to readily share information with key institutions that could help them combat corruption and prevent other irregularities.
“There are instances where we come into possession of information that could assist the wider public in terms of mandates across government departments and agencies,” said the IC’s Director of Investigations, Kevon Stephenson.
“If we could share that information, it would help us to take a more joined-up approach to dealing with corruption and other irregularities.”
Cynics may argue that while Mr Stephenson and his colleagues are correct about the potential benefits of information sharing, they may be focusing on the wrong issue. In other words, there may indeed be lethargy in putting the necessary mechanisms in place, but the problem may not lie in the direction of the information flow.
Under the Integrity Commission Act, individuals and organisations are required to “cooperate with the commission in the exercise of its functions conferred on ... (it) under this Act”.
Further, the IC may apply to the courts to compel “any person or body to provide the commission with any information or document which the court deems necessary to assist the commission in carrying out its functions under this Act”.
The IC therefore has significant powers, both directly and through the courts, to obtain information needed to conduct investigations and carry out its mandate.
However, exercising this authority can become adversarial, as demonstrated by several government agencies and public officials who have recently sought court orders to prevent the IC from accessing information under their control.
A MORE SEAMLESS ARRANGEMENT
A more seamless arrangement would exist if information flowed both ways between the IC and agencies designated as “competent authorities”. Such designation would also remove, except in very limited circumstances, the legal restrictions that prevent the IC from sharing information with other agencies, including government entities.
When the law was passed in 2017, it envisaged that the commission would share and exchange information with domestic public bodies and foreign anti-corruption organisations with similar mandates.
Indeed, Section 7(10) of the act states:
“Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary under this Act or any other law, a competent authority shall disclose to the commission any information or documents necessary to assist the commission in the investigation and prosecution of offences relating to:
. acts of corruption;
. financial crimes; or
. revenue collection.”
The law designated the following agencies as competent authorities:
. the Director of Public Prosecutions;
. the Attorney General;
. Tax Administration Jamaica;
. the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency;
. the Revenue Protection Division ; and
. the Jamaica Constabulary Force.
The IC has developed operational memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with some of these agencies and is seeking to finalise agreements with others. More importantly, it wants several additional agencies to be designated as competent authorities.
These include the Jamaica Customs Agency, with which it has a draft MOU under legal review; the National Identification and Registration Authority; the Office of Public Procurement Policy; the Public Procurement Commission; the National Environment and Planning Agency; and the Independent Commission of Investigations.
In its annual report to Parliament last month, and again at last week’s press conference, IC officials said the commission had formally recommended to the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) that these bodies be designated competent authorities.
“There has been no observable progress since the transmission of the initial recommendation, notwithstanding the commission’s routine and periodic follow-up enquiries to obtain status updates,” the report stated.
This appears to be a routine and relatively straightforward exercise. Government lawyers could use existing MOUs as templates for new agreements, and the completed documents could be sent to the Jamaica Printing Services for publication of the newly designated agencies as competent authorities.
Yet, the cynics may have misjudged the reason for the delay. Government officials may simply have been occupied with other matters and allowed the issue to slip through the cracks.
Now that the OPM has been reminded of the outstanding matter, Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness should direct his officials to move expeditiously. If the decision has not already been taken, the matter should be addressed at next Monday’s Cabinet meeting.