Most Jamaicans that pay attention to matters of governance, particularly those who harbour concerns for the impact of corruption on Jamaica’s development would be familiar with the now seven-year-old public and parliamentary debate on Section 53.3 of the Integrity Commission Act aka – the “gag clause”. What might surprise them, is to discover that there was not one but two “gag clauses” and what would delight them is discovering that one will be removed – a big win for transparency, our right to access information and the fight to reduce corruption.
The Joint Select Committee tasked to review the Integrity Commission Act, 2017 concluded its meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, agreeing to recommend to the Cabinet and Parliament, that Section 56.1 of the Integrity Commission Act be amended to provide greater clarity and direction for the Integrity Commission (IC) in the discharge of their duties. The Commission’s interpretation of this section had effectively placed another “gag” on the anti-corruption institution, and we wish to publicly thank the Committee, its Chair – MP Marlene Malahoo-Forte, the Solicitor General – Ms. Marlene Aldred and the team from Legal Reform for their deliberations that led to this unanimous decision. This decision will return to the people of Jamaica, access to information on public procurement that has been denied for the last four years.
For 15 years (April 2006-September 2020) the Jamaican public, academicians, business sector, media, anti-corruption advocates and parliamentarians could access a realtime database, that contained details on over 179,000 Government contracts. This impressive ‘best practice’ that was initiated by Mr. Greg Christie, in his capacity as Contractor General. Every quarter, public entities are required to submit a report on contracts awarded over an established amount. The details were captured in an online spreadsheet which is still accessible on the Integrity Commission’s website. This practice, of which few jurisdictions can boast, enabled stakeholders to assess the trends and patterns in public procurement as funds flowed from Jamaicans to the private sector – making it very useful for anti-corruption efforts.
The experts in the study of and fight against corruption have long positioned that public procurement contributes to acts of corruption more than any other public sector activity.
For this reason, with the support of the European Union, JAMP developed a digital tool on our website, to simplify the analysis of the Quarterly Awards Contract database for both experts and non-experts, in and out of Government. While access to the 2006-2020 data has been valuable, the absence of data for the past four years has hindered our efforts and stifled transparency, in the very era that is seeking to strengthen the anti-corruption framework through legislative reform and significant financial support.
Policy Incongruence: While we celebrate the Committee’s decision, a significant concern has emerged – the question of policy incongruence or a lack of harmony and consistency in policy directives. In our advocacy for transparency, the Ministry of Finance had advised a year ago of the Government’s decision that the Quarterly Contracts Award database would actually be better managed by their Office of Public Procurement Policy. We were assured that the database would be publicly available by February 2024 and celebrated this promised resumption at the Ministry’s April 2024, Public Procurement Conference.
One year later, despite resources allocated to effect that decision, the status quo remains and our written enquiries to the Financial Secretary have gone unanswered. We therefore use this medium to ask our Government and Parliament – which entity is best positioned to capture this data and manage this database, how soon can we rectify the gap in the data and resume public access?
How did we get here
There are lessons to be learnt and the question of how we reversed a 15 year anti-corruption ‘best practice’ while pursuing the aim of strengthening the fight against corruption, is one worth examining.
Section 56.1 of the Integrity Commission Act says “Every person having an official duty under this Act or being employed or otherwise concerned in the administration of this Act (hereinafter called a concerned person) shall regard and deal with as secret and confidential, all information, statutory declarations, Government contracts, prescribed licences and all other matters relating to any matter before the Commission.”
On the strength of their interpretation of this Section, the Integrity Commission had discontinued the quarterly update of the procurement database, as the Section spoke to treating “as secret and confidential” all matters before the Commission and had also identified Government contracts as one such matter.
As Chair, MP Malahoo-Forte rightly challenged the committee to evaluate the recommendations from the Integrity Commission, Jamaicans for Justice and JAMP through the lens of whether withholding information on Government contracts serves or undermines public interest. The Chair also expressed the view that “It was not our [Parliament’s] intention to treat everything in relation to Government contracts, as secret and confidential. It could not be the intention when you look at the overall legislation.” This position mirrors in exactitude, JAMP’s long expressed view, that this was not what the legislators intended and as such the Jamaica Hansard (a documented verbatim record of what is said in Parliament) should be consulted to determine the actual intent. This was not done.
We were further heartened by the position taken by committee member, MP. Pearnel Charles Jr, as it also mirrored what JAMP shared with the Commission in our advocacy efforts. On three separate occasions he asserted that there was really no need to amend Section 56.1 because it does not obstruct the sharing of contracts awarded, rather “it was intended to give some parameters to the persons in the Integrity Commission. Not to stifle transparency but provide a guideline for those operating in the Integrity Commission…to avoid unauthorized and premature disclosure, in order to protect the integrity of their own internal process.” He conceded however, that if an amendment would bring greater clarity to the Integrity Commission, then he would support that decision. In the absence of clarity JAMP believes the IC should have sought the advice of the Attorney General’s Chamber but that was not done.
We return to the very question that MP Malahoo-Forte had posed to the committee, as it is the question that must guide EVERY decision being made by Government and Parliament – will this serve the best interests of the people of Jamaica?
Stakeholders in the anti-corruption war and citizens who pay taxes for public goods and services should not have had to wait four years for their right to access information on where public funds are going, how much and for what. Other Sections of the Act were amended before and even during the review of the legislation, as such, we regret that Section 56.1 was not afforded greater priority. We regret that the IC did not seek the advice of the Attorney General and we regret the policy misalignment that remains.
While we endorse and thank the Committee for its decision, we use this medium to call on our policymakers to clarify where the responsibility for the Quarterly Contracts Award database will lie and to treat its implementation with the priority it deserves. Transparency in public procurement is not just “good governance” it is an essential safeguard for public resources and our future.
