Dear Editor,

In Jamaica we often say, “Every tub must sit on its own bottom,” meaning individuals and institutions alike must take responsibility for their actions.

This adage has never rung more relevant than in the recent legal tussle involving the prime minister, three associated companies, and the Integrity Commission. The Supreme Court judgment handed down on December 6, 2024, brought clarity to some contentious issues, yet left significant room for reflection on governance, accountability, and public trust.

At its core, this case is a test of balance between oversight and the constitutional rights of leaders. The prime minister and the companies sought judicial review of certain orders arising from a report dated August 30, 2024 by the commission’s director of investigation. They also challenged aspects of a special report recommending Parliament develop policies addressing conflicts of interest among ministers.

The court’s ruling was meticulous. It granted leave for judicial review of three orders related to the August report but denied leave to challenge the broader legislative recommendations. In essence, the court held that the call for legislative reform was within the commission’s remit, emphasising the importance of addressing potential conflicts of interest in government dealings.

The judgment highlights several key points:

1) The court allowed judicial review to challenge certain elements of the director of investigation’s report, reflecting the applicants’ concerns about fairness and procedure.

2) Attempts to compel the director of information and complaints (DIC) to recommend exoneration of the prime minister for 2021–2023 statutory declarations were rejected. The court maintained that the DIC had already executed its duties under the Integrity Commission Act.

3) The court upheld the recommendation urging Parliament to address corporate and commercial conflicts of interest, a decision that underscores the need for robust legislative frameworks in Jamaica.

The Integrity Commission exists to ensure public officials are held to the highest ethical standards. However, this case underscores the fine line between robust oversight and overreach. By granting judicial review in some areas, the court affirmed the importance of due process and procedural fairness. Conversely, its refusal to interfere with certain recommendations reiterated the commission’s autonomy and its mandate to advocate for systemic reforms.

This delicate balance reflects a broader tension in governance: How do we ensure accountability without stifling leadership? In a society in which “cockroach nuh business inna fowl fight,” maintaining public trust requires all parties to stay within their lanes while fulfilling their responsibilities with integrity.

As the legal proceedings continue into 2025, the broader issues raised by this case remain unresolved. How Parliament responds to the Integrity Commission’s recommendations will be a critical litmus test for Jamaica’s commitment to transparency and good governance. Equally, the prime minister’s decision to appeal certain aspects of the ruling suggests this is far from the final chapter in a complex narrative.

As these proceedings unfold, one hopes they will pave the way for a governance framework that is not only transparent but also deeply rooted in the principles of equity and integrity. Only then can every tub truly sit on its own bottom.

Janiel McEwan

janielmcewan17@gmail.com