Mickel Jackson | Let the Integrity Commission do its work

The tabling of the Integrity Commission’s Eighth Annual Report for 2025-2026 should have prompted serious national reflection on progress against corruption. Instead, much of the commentary has fixated on high-profile investigations and revived unsubstantiated accusations of political bias. Jamaica must let the Integrity Commission do its work. This requires granting it constitutional protection, expediting the long-overdue Joint Select Committee (JSC) review of the Integrity Commission Act, and rejecting efforts that frustrate its mandate.
The report shows concrete results. The commission examined 8,529 statutory declarations and certified 1,731, achieving an 11 per cent rise in compliance. It monitored 2,026 government contracts worth roughly J$208.6 billion plus US$792 million, with 100 per cent compliance on Quarterly Contract Awards Reports. The Corruption Prosecution Division secured 21 convictions from concluded matters. Public engagement strengthened, with 227 complaints received and continued progress on protected disclosures as 98 per cent of public bodies now have whistleblower guidelines. The Electronic Declaration System pilot was successfully launched despite legal obstacles while outreach interventions were done through training and school-based Integrity Corners.
One should not dismiss the above as trivial metrics. Internationally, effective anti-corruption bodies succeed through independence, adequate resources, and insulation from political interference. Jamaica’s Corruption Perceptions Index score of 44/100 in 2025 underscores an implementation gap despite a robust framework and a near $2 billion annual budget for the IC alone. Incremental gains like those in the IC report are how perceptions shift over time. While holding the powerful to account is essential, measuring success solely by high-profile convictions is ill-advised. Real progress comes from sustained, unglamorous work on compliance, prevention, and culture change. 
The same report, however, reveals why results remain constrained. Earlier leadership vacancies created uncertainty. Staff turnover reached 19 per cent, with 29 departures against 39 hires. While compensation may be a major factor, the demanding nature of anti-corruption work, including exposure to personal and institutional attacks, also makes retention difficult. In some sensitive positions, the commission may need to look toward retired professionals who have less fear of professional repercussions and can bring greater resilience to the role. 
INCREASE IN LITIGATION
Most instructively, the commission highlights an increase in litigation, including interim injunctions that delay investigations and report tabling. Chairman Justice (Ret’d) Carol Lawrence Beswick articulates this: the IC respects the constitutional right to judicial review, but repeated legal actions risk frustrating the timely discharge of its mandate as these cases divert time, money, and focus from core anti-corruption duties. 
Her comments have been misunderstood, or deliberately misconstrued, by some. One must not misinterpret the chairman’s words as a blanket objection to scrutiny or one that seeks to subvert individual rights. Judicial review is essential in a democracy, especially for a relatively new institution operating under new legislation. Good-faith challenges test boundaries, protect rights, and ultimately strengthen institutions. The IC has a legal unit that responds to such litigation. This unit should be strengthened in preparation for more cases. The main concern, however, lies in situations where applications for judicial review appear designed primarily to delay outcomes. One notable example is where the mere application of judicial review by a state agency delayed the tabling of a commission report in Parliament even though the court has no jurisdiction to dictate to Parliament its own internal procedures. Such tactics do not uphold the rule of law. They undermine it.
The IC’s work is central to good governance because it protects public trust in the integrity of our leaders. When public officials appear to hold assets disproportionate to their declared incomes, or when explanations for increases in wealth are incomplete, Jamaicans deserve timely answers. While due process must always be respected, institutions like the IC must also be able to operate without the perception that legal challenges are being used primarily to cause delay rather than to seek justice.
A welcome development is the active Integrity Commission Parliamentary Oversight Committee under its new chair. It must, however, stay within its proper role of overseeing procedures and operations and not attempt to substitute for the Joint Select Committees reviewing the Integrity Commission Act and Protected Disclosures Act. The public has received no meaningful update on the JSC’s work or timeline for its report. This vacuum fuels speculation and undermines accountability. The Oversight Committee’s focus should complement, not eclipse, the broader legislative review essential for strengthening the IC Act.
AUDITOR GENERAL’S ROLE
There continues to be debate around the auditor general’s role on the commission. As a commissioner, the auditor general provides strategic oversight and governance. She is not involved in the commission’s day-to-day operations, which are led by the executive director and statutory directors. Any potential conflict of duty can be managed through established recusal protocols and other mechanisms. This should not be confused with an actual conflict of interest. Decades of incident-free service demonstrate that her expertise strengthens the commission without compromising its independence or the auditor general’s audit function.
The path forward demands urgency on several fronts. First, the JSC reviewing both the Integrity Commission Act and the Protected Disclosure Act must table its report promptly and facilitate broad public consultation. Amendments should focus on strengthening, not diluting, the IC: removal of the gag clause balanced with adequate investigative leeway, enhanced protections for whistleblowers, and resources to match the commission’s expanding remit. Second, Parliament should move decisively towards constitutional entrenchment. This would require cross-party consensus, but the public interest demands it. Entrenchment would not immunise the IC from judicial scrutiny as challenges on procedural grounds or rights violations would remain available, but it would raise the bar against existential attacks on its core functions.
The IC is not beyond criticism. Its powers demand robust scrutiny, and there are several areas that require improvement. Its recent press briefing was a positive step and should become regular, quarterly, and livestreamed. Public education on both corruption risks and whistleblowing mechanisms remains essential but needs improvement. Jamaica’s democracy depends on institutions that can operate effectively and independently. Partial reforms and procedural delays only embolden corruption. Let the Integrity Commission do its work.

Mickel Jackson is the executive director of Jamaicans for Justice. Send feedback to communications@jamaicansforjustice.org.