As billions of dollars flow into Jamaica to fund rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts following Hurricane Melissa, Executive Director of the Integrity Commission (IC) Craig Beresford has issued a strong appeal for the country’s anti-corruption framework to be reinforced rather than weakened.
Beresford, who was appointed to the post three months ago, has cautioned lawmakers against making any legislative changes that could dilute the authority of the Integrity Commission, stressing that strong oversight is essential to protect the public purse and ensure accountability among public officials.
- Advertisement -
“We have to have a strong Integrity Commission in order to provide the oversight that is required for the public purse and for the conduct of our public officials,” Beresford said, emphasizing that nothing should be done to water down the governing legislation.
His comments come as the joint select committee of Parliament continues its review of the Integrity Commission Act (ICA), a process that had reached an advanced stage during the last parliamentary session. Proposed amendments to the Act have sparked concern among civil society groups and anti-corruption advocates, who fear that changes could undermine the commission’s independence and effectiveness.
Speaking with The Sunday Gleaner, Beresford said the timing of the review makes the need for a robust Integrity Commission even more urgent, given the scale of public spending tied to post-hurricane recovery.
“It is vital for the country to have a strong oversight body to monitor the implementation and use of public funds linked to post Melissa recovery efforts,” he said. “I hope that at the end of the existing process, we come out with stronger legislation. We may change some things in terms of how we function and operate, but the legislation should not be weakened in any shape or form, and we have made that clear from the start.”
Concerns about the direction of the legislative review intensified last year when government lawmakers voted to accept a recommendation to remove the auditor general as a commissioner of the Integrity Commission. Opposition members on the joint select committee voted against the proposal, which was introduced by government lawmaker Everald Warmington and drew sharp criticism from civil society.
The decision sent shockwaves through anti-corruption circles, with one watchdog describing it as a “step toward tyranny.” The Integrity Commission itself rejected the proposal, warning that it would erode the body’s effectiveness.
Then-chairman of the commission, retired Justice Seymour Panton, was unequivocal in his opposition.
“I am stating emphatically again for the record, and for posterity, that I am against this proposal as it will only weaken the commission,” Panton said at the time. “The auditor general has been a fixture on the bodies set up to monitor the behaviour of public officials in their public roles. That has been the position for approximately 50 years.”
Beresford also raised concerns about the commission’s limited involvement during the legislative review process. While the IC was invited to make submissions and was occasionally asked for clarification, no member of the commission was part of the technical support team guiding the committee’s deliberations.
He said the presence of IC officials during the discussions would have helped prevent misunderstandings about how the commission operates.
“Sometimes I watched the proceedings and I am there answering and not even realizing I am not there because I am saying, ‘You are going down the wrong road. That is not it. That is not how it is done,’” he explained. “But you don’t have the opportunity because you are not there.”
Despite these challenges, Beresford said he remains committed to working with lawmakers and the wider public to advance Jamaica’s anti-corruption agenda.
“One may see this as a pie-in-the-sky dream, but the journey is one in which we can start now,” he said, expressing hope for a corruption-free society.
He also pointed to Jamaica’s performance on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) as a key area for improvement. Jamaica scored 44 out of 100 last year, placing it below the threshold of 50, which indicates a serious corruption problem. On the index, zero represents a highly corrupt country, while 100 indicates a very clean one.
While acknowledging that the CPI measures perception rather than absolute reality, Beresford said the score matters because it influences investor confidence and international assessments.
“Investors look at these benchmarks to make investment and other business decisions,” he said. “The governance architecture worldwide recognizes it, so if a country is very corrupt, you may find that you have more sanctions or more conditions attached that will impede development.”
He warned that weakening Jamaica’s anti-corruption laws would send the wrong signal internationally and could further harm the country’s standing on the index.
Beresford also reminded lawmakers that under Section 5(4)(a) of the Integrity Commission Act, the commission is ultimately responsible and accountable to Parliament, underscoring the need for cooperation rather than conflict.
“We are working on behalf of Parliament, so if Parliament is fighting the commission that it is supposed to be accountable to, we have a problem,” he said.
While acknowledging that disagreements between the commission and legislators are inevitable, Beresford stressed that such differences should not translate into efforts to undermine the institution.
“You can’t say you want a strong commission and at the end of the day, if we have a disagreement, you seek to undermine the commission,” he cautioned.
As Jamaica navigates a period of significant public spending and reconstruction, Beresford’s appeal adds to growing calls for transparency, accountability, and a strengthened Integrity Commission capable of safeguarding the country’s democratic and economic future.
