Government Senators React to recent Integrity Commission Special Report

by | Feb 17, 2023 | Major Stories

Organizations such as the Integrity Commission of Jamaica operate successfully in a democratic society only when they enjoy the confidence and support of the society as a whole and are able to attract and retain the confidence of key stakeholders. This confidence must be earned and nurtured by fairness, impartiality and fearlessness, which will together allow the organization to gain credibility in the exercise of its mandated authority. The unjust treatment of the recently tabled Integrity Commission report and belated publicization of the related ruling has been presided over by its Executive Director (ED). This unusual and bizarre treatment of the issue has been exacerbated by the Executive Director’s republication of material on Twitter maligning the official and posts by both the ED and the Commission itself which curiously omitted any mention of the exoneration of the official. It is not an exaggeration to say that the entire Integrity Commission has been brought into public disrepute and subjected to ridicule as a result of the Executive Director’s management of the affairs of the Commission and his public deport on social media. The damage to the country, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Commission itself was compounded by not only the Commission’s silence following the tabling of the report and prior to the delivery of the ruling to the Parliament, but also the ED’s republication on Twitter, of both domestically and internationally issued material maligning the head of one of the three (3) branches of Jamaica’s government as well as posts made by both the Executive Director and the Commission itself which curiously omitted any mention of the prior exoneration of Jamaica’s Head of Government. There are important questions to be asked which should demand timely answers: 1. Why did the Commission fail to deliver the Ruling on the report tabled contemporaneously with the report? 2. What is the explanation for the Commission’s silence after the report was tabled and prior to the delivery of the Ruling at a time when they had the legal authority to publicly correct the speculation and misinformation circulating in the local and international media? 3. What could explain the actions of the Executive Director on social media at a time when he must have been aware of the exoneration contained in the Ruling? 4. Is it in the best interest of the Commission and all stakeholders concerned that that the Commission continue in its present incarnation and under its current leadership? S t a t e m e n t o f G o v e r n m e n t S e n a t o r s F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 3 2 |P a g e The statement issued by the Commission fails to answer these questions adequately. The reputation and governance of the Commission as an institution must be restored by immediate action which must include an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the actions described above, and the resignation or other removal of the Executive Director.

Government Senators react to the recent Integrity Commission Special Report on Prime Minister and related ruling a short while ago. Read the Press Release below:

Organizations such as the Integrity Commission of Jamaica operate successfully in a democratic society
only when they enjoy the confidence and support of society as a whole and are able to attract and
retain the confidence of key stakeholders. This confidence must be earned and nurtured by fairness, impartiality, and fearlessness, which will together allow the organization to gain credibility in the exercise of its mandated authority.
The unjust treatment of the recently tabled Integrity Commission report and the belated publicization of the related ruling has been presided over by its Executive Director (ED).


This unusual and bizarre treatment of the issue has been exacerbated by the Executive Director’s
republication of material on Twitter maligning the official and posts by both the ED and the Commission
itself which curiously omitted any mention of the exoneration of the official. It is not an exaggeration to say that the entire Integrity Commission has been brought into public disrepute and subjected to ridicule as a result of the Executive Director’s management of the affairs of the Commission and his public deport on social media. The damage to the country, the Office of the Prime Minister, and the Commission itself was compounded by not only the Commission’s silence following the tabling of the report and prior to the delivery of the ruling to the Parliament but also the ED’s
republication on Twitter, of both domestically and internationally issued material maligning the head of
one of the three (3) branches of Jamaica’s government as well as posts made by both the Executive
Director and the Commission itself which curiously omitted any mention of the prior exoneration of
Jamaica’s Head of Government.
There are important questions to be asked which should demand timely answers:

  1. Why did the Commission fail to deliver the Ruling on the report tabled contemporaneously with the
    report?
  2. What is the explanation for the Commission’s silence after the report was tabled and prior to the
    delivery of the Ruling at a time when they had the legal authority to publicly correct the speculation and
    misinformation circulating in the local and international media?
  3. What could explain the actions of the Executive Director on social media at a time when he must have
    been aware of the exoneration contained in the Ruling?
  4. Is it in the best interest of the Commission and all stakeholders concerned that the Commission
    continue in its present incarnation and under its current leadership?
  5. The statement issued by the Commission fails to answer these questions adequately. The reputation and
    governance of the Commission as an institution must be restored by immediate action which must include
    an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the actions described above, and the resignation or
    other removal of the Executive Director.