Lessons on Integrity from Jamaica
Since it’s founding, Integrity Group Barbados has sought to educate the public on the importance of legislative initiatives that can improve the island’s integrity system. Some of these initiatives included Integrity and Contractor General Legislation. Since Jamaica remains the only regional territory that has passed and operationalized these acts, it can provide useful insights into their effectiveness.
Undoubtedly, Jamaica has benefited from the Office of the Contractor General and the Integrity Commission. There have been worthwhile investigations by the Contractor General, and the declaratory requirements stipulated by Integrity Commission have managed conflicts of interest in government. However, despite these benefits, some managerial shortcomings have led Jamaica to revitalize the approach to their anti corruption institutions.
How Jamaica improved Integrity
This revitalization came in the form of amendments to the Integrity Commission Act (2017), that have merged the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Office of the Contractor General and the Integrity Commission into a single agency. This new Integrity Commission is responsible for investigating alleged or suspected acts of corruption; preventing, identifying and prosecuting corruption; and monitoring the award and discharge of Government contracts and prescribed licenses.
This merger was determined by the need to strengthen the management structure of the island’s integrity institutions to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Jamaica’s experience has shown that although a comprehensive legal framework was necessary, how these legal regimes were managed and operationalized determined institutional effectiveness. Previously, the Offices of the Contractor General, the Integrity Commission and the Prevention of the Corruption Act, simultaneously governed matters of corruption which created bureaucratic and administrative difficulties. However, the merger of these provisions into a single entity arguably mitigates many of these concerns by ensuring a seamless administrative process.
Management key to integrity
Rather than maintain three distinct agencies will multiple divisions, Jamaica has now created a single agency with three divisions. These include the Investigation Division; the Corruption Prevention Division; and the Administration Commission. The Investigation Division investigates allegations of corruption as well as monitors the awards of government contracts. The Corruption Prevention Division, which is subject to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), initiates prosecutions where the Investigation Division has made prosecutorial refers. Whereas, the Administration Division manages the daily business of the Commission, receives and transfers complaints or enquiries concerning acts of corruption to the respective division for action.
Therefore, the divisions have distinct objectives, but also functionally support each other’s goals. Each division also has a separate director and through coordination with the Commission’s executive director, its functions are assured. This collegial approach to the Commission where there are separate directors also provides for a separation of powers between the investigative, prosecutorial and administrative divisions. This can prevent incidence such as abuse of power that can occur when authority is concentrated into a single administrator.
Benefits of a single agency
Merging the Integrity Commission also has the added benefit of reducing instances of duplicated efforts and procedures that can occur when operating multiple anti-corruption agencies. A single agency also improves operations with other anti-corruption bodies like the Financial Investigations Division, Jamaican law enforcement and other anti-corruption NGOs, as they can easily liaise with a single governing institution. The ability of the Commission to execute its tasks in an expedient manner is also be enhanced, since the anti-corruption directorate has been reduced.
Barbados can learn from Jamaica
Jamaica’s establishment, experience and reforms of their integrity institutions can provide multiple lessons for Barbados. As we begin to explore approaches that can improve our legislative framework on integrity, Jamaica has highlighted the significance of managerial considerations in the operationalization process. Therefore, rather than reinvent the wheel or relive Jamaica’s pitfalls, Barbados can benefit from observing the successes and shortcomings of the Jamaican experience.