Given our history as a country, in terms of political tribalism, which has resulted in deaths, cronyism and nepotism, and misappropriation of public funds, among others, it is undoubtedly prudent to have accountability bodies to ensure that our politicians and other public sector employees adhere to established principles that will guide their conduct as public officials.

There are people who certainly do not want to relive the atrocities of former years experienced under the stewardship of both the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People’s National Party (PNP). Therefore, whatever body and policy can be created to keep our public officials in check are welcome. However, what happens when these integrity and accountability bodies demonstrate open and blatant bias and intellectual dishonesty? Can they be taken seriously?

Recently, we had a whole episode around Minister of Finance Dr Nigel Clarke’s use of “massa” in reference to Opposition Leader Mark Golding’s description of members of the JLP. For weeks, academics and political and civil activists aligned to the PNP lambasted the finance minister by flooding the editorial and column sections of our major newspapers. Certainly, we all agree on the inappropriateness of the choice of word, but have Comrades demonstrated the same level of eagerness and sternness in employing the rod of correction whenever their members fall out of line? As it stands, many of them seem to have become indefatigable in opposing for the mere sake of the word.

The intense but respectful clash in Parliament between the Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis and the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Health and Wellness Dunstan Bryan is another case that highlighted questionable accountability. The auditor general, in her report, raised several red flags over contracts, purchase orders, and hefty sums of money that were spent by the health ministry to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus. She insisted that, despite the emergency of the pandemic, better management was needed of the public purse and questioned whether the ministry received value for the millions spent. She also noted breaches in some procedures.

In his defence, the permanent secretary reckoned that the report was void of context and asked the auditor general to point him to any law that he might have broken.

The auditor general and her team must be commended for their vigilance. Too often big spends are announced, but it is hard to account for taxpayers’ money. At the same time, however, individuals should be given a fair chance to defend their stewardship and integrity whenever their reputation and character come under scrutiny.

Despite Bryan’s position, there were a few from civil society who were adamant that he breached a law. It is as though they stretched their measuring tapes beyond their limits to find at least one minor issue to pronounce a guilty verdict upon him. Many people have dedicated their lives to public service and nation-building, but if every decision they take makes them feel as though they are walking on eggshells, offering one’s expertise for national development may become very unattractive.

Many readers may have seen how South Avenue Grill had to defend its reputation, following a client’s negative review after she went there for her birthday celebration. Many on social media also stood in support of the restaurant. It would be most unfortunate if someone tampered with a company’s or an individual’s image on unfounded grounds.

The Integrity Commission (IC) was hotly scrutinised earlier this year for how it handled the matter involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness. The scandal was even carried on different international media. People have subsequently called for employees at the IC to resign but, of course, most things are a nine-day wonder in this country.

Isn’t is ironic now, though, that the IC is highlighting that no member of the Government has signed the code of conduct document that is currently sparking debate? Some people are saying that the prime minister and JLP members of Parliament hold no regard for the IC, but there is a wider cross section of people who have lost confidence in the commission.

The same is true for groups that are led by people who have clear political biases. People have long seen through their masks and now weigh everything that comes out of their mouths. Why invite them to speak on topical issues as neutral voices when the public knows they are mouthpieces for one or the other of the two major political parties?

Integrity does not discriminate. It speaks justice and fairness. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Can we say our integrity and civil groups have been living up to their core values?

Oneil Madden is interim chair/head of Department of Humanities and lecturer in language(s) and linguistics at Northern Caribbean University. He is also a PhD candidate in applied linguistics at Clermont Auvergne University, France. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or maddenoniel@yahoo.com.