NAME: Rajaye Bonner

COURSE: Govt. 2007

DATE: 03/26/18
ID: 620087745
TUTOR: Miss Selvin Stephenson
TUTORIAL TIME: Mon 8-9 p.m
TITLE: Critically discuss the functions, strengths and weaknesses of Public

Accountability or Anti-Corruption agencies in an English speaking Caribbean Country

of your choice.
 Jamaica is a developing country with the largest population in the English-speaking

Caribbean, which comprises of approximately 2.9 million persons. Over the past years, the

island’s economy has been facing significant and challenging socio-economic problems,

namely high crime and corruption which are labelled as the main contributors to Jamaica’s

social and economic predicament. Despite having a good anti-corruption institutional

framework on paper which accounts for the strengths of public accountability, it is indeed

evident that it has not materialized in practice in terms of exposing and curtailing unlawful

activities and this accounts for the weaknesses of public accountability. Even though Jamaica

is perceived, both internationally and locally, as having significant deficits in its governance,

accountability and transparency standards, the country has made significant strides in tackling

corruption. In the latest Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency

International (TI), Jamaica’s performance in 2017 reflected an improvement in score on the

Corruption Perception Index from 38 to 44 on a scale of zero to 100 and a jump upwards of

some 15 places from number 83 of 176 countries in 2016 to number 68 of 180 countries in

2017.

According to Ferlie, Lynn Jr & Politt (2007), public accountability implies holding

officials and organisations responsible for their actions and performance. In the governance

realm, it applies to any holder of a public office, with the responsibility for the management

of public affairs and public resources - politicians, ministers, civil servants, public managers,

etc. Thus, “public” should be understood to mean “openness” or “transparency”. In the public

realm, account should not be rendered discretely or behind closed doors, it should be open to

the general public at large. The Government, Agencies and Public Officials have a formal

obligation to render account to the general public and those institutions of accountability

tasked with oversight by providing information about their decisions and actions in addition

to information about the performance of tasks and certain outcomes.

At all times, information should be provided in an open and widely accessible manner,

hearings, reports and debates should be open to the public domain. In essence, public

accountability mainly regards the rendering of account for matters of public interest, such as

the use spending of public funds, how power and authority is exercised in the public domain

and the conduct of public officials and bodies as it relates established laws and codes of

conduct. However, it is imperative to note that public accountability is not limited to public

organisations, but can also extend to private organisations/bodies that exercise public

privileges or receive public funding (Scott, 2000).

Public accountability is a fundamental principle in any democratic government system

as it is one of the central pillars of good governance. Democracy remains a paper procedure if

those entrusted with the power and authority to govern cannot be held accountable for their

acts and omissions, for their decisions, policies and expenditures (Ferlie, Lynn Jr & Politt

2007). Public Accountability is essential as it allows the Government of Jamaica to act in

ways that are broadly approved by the citizenry. The Jamaican citizens should have the right

to know what actions have been taken in their name; having the ability to publicly scrutinize

the activities of the government plays a vital role in promoting good governance. When the

public at large is able to exercise public scrutiny by indentifying short comings in the

government operational procedures, questioning the implementation of policies in terms of

the feasibility and benefits that can be derived from implementing certain policies this allows

to the government to act in ways that are broadly approved by the general public (Shah,

2007).

Moreover, public accounting serves to enhance the legitimacy of the public governance

process in Jamaica. When account is rendered in an open way to the public this safe guards

against corruption, nepotism, the abuse of power and other unlawful behaviour. Thus, a sense

of legitimacy is bestowed unto the government and as a consequence, this fosters confidence
and trust in the government. In addition, public accountability improves the performance of

government operations in terms of the delivery of public goods, public services and their

operational procedures. When managers or public officials are held accountable for their

short comings it prompts them to adjust their policies and procedures in order to deter future

reoccurrences (Shah, 2007).

The CAPRI (2017) study gives a detail outline of Jamaica’s major legislations and

institutions which make up the anticorruption framework. These numerous oversight bodies,

legislations and whistle blowing platforms which accounts for the strengths of public

accountability in Jamaica.

These include: The Corruption Prevention Act (2001), The Access to Information Act (2002),

The Public Bodies and Management Act (2001), The Contractor General Act (1983), The

Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act (1973) and the Protected Disclosures Act (2011).

The Jamaican parliament has developed some important commissions or oversight

bodies that act on behalf of the Constitution or parliament with legal and political insularity

from the government. These bodies represent a quasi-separation-of-powers feature of our

parliamentary system. Some of which includes: The Auditor General- under the Jamaican

Constitution, the Auditor General is mandated to ascertain whether government accounts are

being faithfully and properly kept. The Auditor General must also ensure that all money

expended and charged to an appropriation account has been applied to the purpose for which

the provision made by Parliament was intended and that any payment of public money

conforms to the authority which governs it, The Integrity Commission- the Integrity

Commission is mandated to keep a record of statutory declarations furnished by

Parliamentarians and examines these statutory declarations, The Department of Public

Prosecution (DPP) - The DPP is mandated with the powers to preside over criminal matters

and corruption offences, The Office of the Contractor General (OCG) - The Contractor
General is charged with the responsibility of ensuring transparency and integrity in the

procurement of goods and services by the State and last but not least, The Major Organized

Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA) – An elite Agency focusing on tackling

corruption in the public sector and bringing high-value criminal targets to justice and

National Integrity Action

In regards to the whistle blower platforms, The JCF and MOCA offer a toll free

hotline - 1-800-CORRUPT, which promises anonymity to callers who report corrupt acts –

The MOCA ‘Talk Time’ mobile application is a user-friendly tool presented by the Major

Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency, facilitating the mobile and anonymous

reporting of corruption. In addition, The OCG has an anonymous online reporting form on

its website for any impropriety or irregularity in the procurement, award or termination of

government contracts, permits and licenses. The NIA also has an anonymous online reporting

form on its website for the public to report any acts of corruption.

Despite the fact that great effort has been dedicated to develop and put in numerous

accountability, anti-corruption legislations and institutions to stymie unlawful

practices/activities and improve public accountability, pervasive gaps and weaknesses of

public accountability continues to exist.

In an article that was published in the Jamaica Gleaner on August 27, 2017 titled

“Many Watch Dogs, Little Accountability”, it states that while Jamaica has a strong verbal

rhetoric for holding public officials accountable, which involves sanctioning or penalising

errant officials and several watch dog agencies- the Contractor General, the Integrity

Commission, the Public Service Commission, etc sufficient public accountability rarely

materialises. Jamaica's public accountability deficiency is not primarily an inadequacy of

institutional mechanisms for accountability.

 Examining this dilemma, the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI) latest study

revealed and has given credence to the notion that the existing gaps and deficits of public

accountability in Jamaica does not emanate from the lack of ample accountability and anti-

corruption frameworks as there are numerous institutions and laws on the books that are quite

potent. The study contends that resource constraints are a major factor in the deficiency of

public accountability. The anti-corruption institutions are often dysfunctional, due to

inadequate resources. In addition to an 'overburdened, under-resourced and dysfunctional

judicial system' was the most serious human-rights issue in Jamaica. The study further

highlighted that the judiciary has a poor record of successfully prosecuting corruption cases

and, therefore, lacked transparency. Estimates of around 159 corruption cases were pending

in the courts from 2008 to 2015 (CAPRI 2017).

The oversight bodies in Jamaica are powerless in the sense that they lack powers to

arrest and prosecute public or government officials who use state resources to their

advantage. In a lecture presentation done by the Office of the Contractor General, one of the

deficiencies identified was that the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) has no power to

prosecute corruption or other criminal offences which are associated with breaches of the

Government’s procurement, contracting and licensing laws. Instead, the Contractor General

is required by law to refer matters to the appropriate State authorities, whether it is a portfolio

minister, the DPP or the Attorney General, for the appropriate action to be taken against

errant Public Officials or bodies. Likewise, the Auditor General reviews government

expenditure and submit a final report after to parliament. The Auditor General Investigations

are done post facto and the auditor general does not have wide investigative power like that

of the OCG neither does the Auditor General possess prosecutorial powers. Coupled with the

fact that both bodies’ remedial recommendations can be lawfully ignored by the Government,

the inability of a Contractor General and Auditor General to initiate their own prosecutions
raises even more worrying questions as to whether the Parliament, in promulgating these

oversight bodies, had intended for them to be truly effective. We spend so much of tax

payer’s money financing these entities yet the government fails to equip them with the

necessary powers of extensive investigation and prosecution.

The CAPRI (2017) study contends that the criminal penalties in place for persons

prosecuted for corrupt activities are too negligible and therefore, do not have a deterrent

effect. In support of this, evidenced was provided in the study to illustrate the low rate of

compliance of public servants in accordance with the Corruption (Prevention) Act 2001. For

the period of December 2014, 36,042 declarations were to be received by the commission.

However, as of March 31, 2015 only 18,134, compliance rate of only 50%. Fines range from

as low as $5000.00 up to $200,000 or even jail time which goes up to at least two years.

When corrupt activities attract negligible penalties as a consequence there will be low

compliance among public officials and bodies. Also

In a report written by the Contractor General, Greg Christie in 2011 titled “The Fight

to Secure Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in the Award of Government Contracts

in Jamaica” the Contractor General, highlighted that one of the deficiencies is weak political

will by both political administration to significantly addressed the flaws and deficiencies of

the anti-corruption framework. This is empirically evident, as the successful GOJ

administrations have miserably failed to effectively remedy the aforementioned deficiencies

such as strengthening the enforcement capacities and powers of the country’s anti-corruption

institutions. Despite having made solemn commitments to combat corruption, either while

campaigning on the political electoral platform, or while delivering prime ministerial

inaugural speeches. It is quite evident by now that the Jamaican Government loves to sway
the masses with alluring verbal rhetoric as I have alluded to previously but nothing ever gets

done.

To conclude, although Jamaica has an extensive anti-corruption framework that has the

potential to expose and deter unlawful activities in the public realm which strengthens public

accountability. There are noticeable strengths and weaknesses. On paper, there’s amicable

legislations and institutions that are ostensibly effective. It is logical for one to definitively admit that

the anti corruption framework only looks good on paper but in practise it is quite the opposite as there

are numerous factors which accounts for the deficiencies that has continued to undermine public

accountability in Jamaica.

The Anti-Corruption framework which comprises of the laws and institutions needs to be

strengthened so it doesn’t appears to be potent only on paper. The oversight bodies and anti

corruption agencies needs to be robust and fearless institutions with the requisite will and

power to combat misuse and abuse of public resources by public officials. The investigative

and enforcement capacities of the agencies and oversight bodies needs to be enhanced in

order to equip them with the necessary power to effectuate real change. In addition to powers

of investigation these bodies need powers of arrest and prosecution. Also, resource

constraints, which is a major deficiency needs to be given serious attention in order for the

existing anti-corruption institutions to yield optimal results in curtailing corruption Jamaica.

The government of Jamaica should engage in more public private partnerships with private

investors internationally and locally and leverage the financial aid through these collaborative

partnerships to provide support to the existing resource constraint deficiencies of the anti-

corruption institutions. This could yield positive benefits such as making the judicial system

operate with more efficiency by alleviating the backlog in the judicial system, especially

since there are a massive number of backlogged cases. Until we address these issues, then as

a nation we are doomed to the scourge of corruption.

 REFERENCES

Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI). (2017). Anti Corruption Innovations:

Strengthening Jamaica’s Integrity

Contractor General Report. (2011). The Fight to Secure Integrity, Transparency and
Accountability in the Award of Government Contracts in Jamaica. Retrieved from
https://ourvle.mona.uwi.edu/pluginfile.php/213626/mod_resource/content/0/OCG_The%20Fi
ght%20to%20Secure%20Integrity%2C%20Transparency%20and%20Accountability%20in%
20the%20Award%20of.pdf

E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (eds.). (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management.
Oxford University Press.

Gleaner Editorial. (2017). ‘Many Watch Dogs Little Accountability’. The Jamaica Gleaner.
Retrieved from http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/focus/20170827/jeanette-calder-many-
watchdogs-little-accountability.

Scott, Colin. (2000). ‘Accountability in the Regulatory State’, Journal of Law and Society,
27,1: 38-60.

Shah, A. (2007). Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption: Public Sector

Governance and Accountability Series. The World Bank.