JAMP calls for stronger Cabinet vetting following Wheatley IC report

KINGSTON, Jamaica — The Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP) is calling for urgent reforms to the process used to vet Cabinet appointees, arguing that the Integrity Commission’s (IC) investigation into Dr Andrew Wheatley has exposed significant gaps in Jamaica’s governance framework.

In a statement on Tuesday, the accountability watchdog noted that Wheatley had been under active investigation by the Integrity Commission for four years before being appointed to the Cabinet, raising questions about the standards and procedures used in selecting ministers.

“This raises the question as to what standards or requirements exist that are factored into the determination of Cabinet appointments. The present situation begs for urgent reforms to strengthen vetting,” JAMP said.

The organisation’s comments follow an Integrity Commission report tabled in Parliament recommending that Wheatley face several charges, including illicit enrichment. He has denied any wrongdoing.

READ:IC: Charge Wheatley with illicit enrichment

JAMP argued that individuals being considered for Cabinet positions should be required to disclose to the prime minister whether they are the subject of any integrity-related or other official investigations before an appointment is made.

“It is reasonable to ask whether any such requirement exists, and what if anything did the prime minister know of the investigation prior to making the appointment. Good governance requires more than technical competencies. It also must engender trust and set a high bar for transparency,” it said.

It maintained that the seriousness of the referral for charges for illicit enrichment, alleged omissions from statutory declarations and findings relating to failures to provide information requested by the Integrity Commission, all chargeable offences under the IC Act, requires an immediate and credible response that, at the very least, should demonstrate some consistent standard.

“There is a glaring inconsistency in Mr Wheatley’s failure to resign and the prime minister’s failure to date to relieve him of his position in the Cabinet pending the outcome of the referrals by the IC and court decision/s to come. This is in the context of findings and recommendations by the Integrity Commission that are among the most serious to have emerged to date from Jamaica’s integrity and anti-corruption framework,” JAMP said.

Noting that the Wheatley investigation has highlighted broader structural weaknesses within the country’s accountability framework, JAMP said the report should serve as a catalyst for reform in several key areas.

Among its recommendations, the organisation called for strengthening the statutory declaration regime, arguing that a system that can allegedly be circumvented through omissions, misrepresentations and failures to provide information over a 12-year period without earlier detection or sanction is not functioning as intended.

JAMP also called for greater transparency and accountability in the referral process that follows Integrity Commission investigations. It argued that when referrals are made to agencies such as the Director of Corruption Prosecution, Tax Administration Jamaica or the Speaker of the House, there should be a statutory requirement to update Parliament and the public on what actions have been taken and the outcomes achieved.

The organisation further stressed the need for clear and consistent standards governing executive accountability. It pointed to the 2018 Petrojam scandal, which led to a Cabinet departure despite no recommendation for criminal prosecution, and contrasted that with the current situation involving recommendations for prosecution on four criminal counts, including illicit enrichment.

JAMP also referenced the departures of former ministers JC Hutchinson and Floyd Green in 2020 and 2021, respectively, noting that both were held accountable without the benefit of an investigative report containing criminal findings.

While acknowledging that there have also been cases where concerns were raised about public officials without comparable action being taken, JAMP argued that a discretionary approach to accountability is no longer sufficient.

The organisation is therefore calling for the establishment of a clear governance framework outlining how serious integrity findings that could undermine public confidence in the Cabinet and Government should be addressed.

Such a framework, JAMP said, should preserve the prime minister’s constitutional discretion while ensuring that the standards guiding decision-making are publicly known, the process is clearly understood and citizens are able to assess whether those standards are being applied fairly and consistently.