Tweet
EDITORIAL - Mr Christie's Logic
Published: Wednesday | January 11, 20120 Comments
This newspaper believes Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller is sincere in her abhorrence of corruption. We have no doubt, therefore, that she welcomed this week's reminder by Greg Christie of her recent reiteration of this position, as well as the contractor general's agenda for her administration to break the back of the problem.
Indeed, we have great sympathy for Mr Christie's proposal, especially, as we have noted in the past, his suggestion for a single anti-corruption agency with full powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution.
There are three separate, independent agencies that police public-sector corruption, including Mr Christie's Office of the Contractor General (OCG). The others are the Parliamentary Integrity Commission and the Corruption Prevention Commission.
The OCG's job is to ensure that the Government's procurement regulations are followed and that the award of contracts is not subject to corruption.
The other two monitor, respectively, the conduct of parliamentarians and public-sector employees. None, except, perhaps, the OCG under Mr Christie, whose open, aggressive style brings public attention to efforts, has worked particularly well.
Parliamentarians and government workers are often tardy in filing their asset and liability declarations, and the commissions have lacked the resources to aggressively investigate breaches. There is also legislative weakness, such as the lack of authority to automatically impose fines for the late filing of declarations, as has been noted by the Corruption Prevention Commission in its annual reports.
The most egregious laxity, these agencies indicate, is the failure of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to aggressively prosecute persons who breach the law. Indeed, this has been a matter of sharp public quarrel, if not hostility, between Mr Christie's agency and the DPP, and muted complaints by the other agencies in their annual reports.
Herein lies Mr Christie's call for an agency with clear prosecutorial powers. As it now stands, the DPP, by power of the Constitution, has pre-eminent right to institute criminal prosecutions in Jamaica and the power to intervene in, and even stop, proceedings. The commissions, therefore, are at the mercy of the DPP, with regard to prosecutions.
That problem would not be fully addressed by the former administration's proposal for a special prosecutor for corruption matters, whose powers would still be subordinate to the DPP's.
Give corruption watchdog own space
The solution, on the face of it, is to amend the Constitution to establish the proposed single anti-corruption commission with prosecutorial powers, equivalent to those of the DPP's, in its specific area of competence. This is achievable, given that the constitutional clauses enshrining the role of the DPP, and setting out the powers of her office, are not deeply entrenched, although requiring special procedures for passage/amendment by the legislature. Indeed, a single corruption agency would allow for a more efficient utilisation of the limited talent and scarce resources.
It would be up to Parliament to define the parameters of power to preclude the collision of authority.
The new administration, we are sure, embraces the logic of this proposal, as was indicated by now Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips when he spoke on behalf of Mrs Simpson Miller at a forum last month.
Then, they were in Opposition. But a few short weeks and transition to government could hardly have changed their outlook. So convinced are we of Mrs Simpson Miller's sincerity, we expect her to persuade Mr Christie to extend his contract and oversee the expanded agency.
Published: Wednesday | January 11, 20120 Comments
This newspaper believes Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller is sincere in her abhorrence of corruption. We have no doubt, therefore, that she welcomed this week's reminder by Greg Christie of her recent reiteration of this position, as well as the contractor general's agenda for her administration to break the back of the problem.
Indeed, we have great sympathy for Mr Christie's proposal, especially, as we have noted in the past, his suggestion for a single anti-corruption agency with full powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution.
There are three separate, independent agencies that police public-sector corruption, including Mr Christie's Office of the Contractor General (OCG). The others are the Parliamentary Integrity Commission and the Corruption Prevention Commission.
The OCG's job is to ensure that the Government's procurement regulations are followed and that the award of contracts is not subject to corruption.
The other two monitor, respectively, the conduct of parliamentarians and public-sector employees. None, except, perhaps, the OCG under Mr Christie, whose open, aggressive style brings public attention to efforts, has worked particularly well.
Parliamentarians and government workers are often tardy in filing their asset and liability declarations, and the commissions have lacked the resources to aggressively investigate breaches. There is also legislative weakness, such as the lack of authority to automatically impose fines for the late filing of declarations, as has been noted by the Corruption Prevention Commission in its annual reports.
The most egregious laxity, these agencies indicate, is the failure of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to aggressively prosecute persons who breach the law. Indeed, this has been a matter of sharp public quarrel, if not hostility, between Mr Christie's agency and the DPP, and muted complaints by the other agencies in their annual reports.
Herein lies Mr Christie's call for an agency with clear prosecutorial powers. As it now stands, the DPP, by power of the Constitution, has pre-eminent right to institute criminal prosecutions in Jamaica and the power to intervene in, and even stop, proceedings. The commissions, therefore, are at the mercy of the DPP, with regard to prosecutions.
That problem would not be fully addressed by the former administration's proposal for a special prosecutor for corruption matters, whose powers would still be subordinate to the DPP's.
Give corruption watchdog own space
The solution, on the face of it, is to amend the Constitution to establish the proposed single anti-corruption commission with prosecutorial powers, equivalent to those of the DPP's, in its specific area of competence. This is achievable, given that the constitutional clauses enshrining the role of the DPP, and setting out the powers of her office, are not deeply entrenched, although requiring special procedures for passage/amendment by the legislature. Indeed, a single corruption agency would allow for a more efficient utilisation of the limited talent and scarce resources.
It would be up to Parliament to define the parameters of power to preclude the collision of authority.
The new administration, we are sure, embraces the logic of this proposal, as was indicated by now Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips when he spoke on behalf of Mrs Simpson Miller at a forum last month.
Then, they were in Opposition. But a few short weeks and transition to government could hardly have changed their outlook. So convinced are we of Mrs Simpson Miller's sincerity, we expect her to persuade Mr Christie to extend his contract and oversee the expanded agency.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
Comment