I read Garfield Higgins’ opinion piece, ‘The Hypocrisy Trap’ in Jamaica Observer.
Higgins argued that the PNP lacks the moral authority to demand Dr Andrew Wheatley’s resignation because it has not consistently held its own members to the same standard.
To be clear, under our democratic system, Wheatley is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Notwithstanding, the current situation concerns the constitutional, ethical and political responsibilities of the PM when questions arise regarding a member of his Cabinet.
Regrettably, after two weeks the debate remains trapped in political tribalism instead of the country discussing the larger constitutional and governance issues at stake.
PM Holness is in a quagmire of his own making. Keeping the minister in the Cabinet suggests that serious IC findings carry no executive consequences and raises the question whether Holness’s own IC predicament has left him unable to enforce the standards he claims to uphold. If he removed the minister, he inevitably invites comparisons with his own IC struggles and the obvious question becomes, why did adverse findings against Holness not warrant similar political consequences?
While the legal circumstances of both gentlemen are different, the issue is one of principle, consistency and credibility. Accountability cannot be one standard for Cabinet ministers and another for the PM.
Holness’s predicament is particularly acute because he is not an impartial arbiter of accountability. He being the subject of adverse findings by the IC and having spent years publicly questioning the IC’s credibility. Having challenged the institution when under scrutiny, any political decision he now makes concerning the minister will inevitably be judged against his own struggles with the IC.
Holness has, in effect, deprived himself of the moral authority to demand a minister’s resignation or enforce accountability without inviting the uncomfortable questions about his own conduct and whether his judgment is truly guided by principle.
HOLNESS PROBLEM
This is why the current crisis is ultimately a Holness problem. His long-running conflict with the IC has so eroded his credibility that that no decision he takes can convincingly be presented as a principled defence of accountability. Whatever he does will inevitably be viewed through the lens of his own unresolved IC controversy.
In effect, “Any wey him tun, macka juk him.”
Higgins’ position misses the constitutional analysis and the moral authority quandary the PM is in. This failure to analyse political controversies objectively is itself part of the political tribalism that continues to plague accountability in Jamaica.
Rather than asking whether consistent principles are being applied, the discussion becomes irrelevant political debate over which party behaved badly first. That approach weakens rather than strengthens democratic governance.
Higgins’ comparisons are also constitutionally flawed. The minister concerned is not simply an elected member of Parliament; he is a Cabinet minister and therefore part of the executive branch of government, serving entirely at the PM’s pleasure. Whether he remains in Cabinet is therefore a decision for the PM alone.
By contrast, Dennis Gordon, Mikael Phillips, Isat Buchanan and Dwayne Vaz were not members of the executive. Neither Holness nor Golding could remove them from Parliament because party leaders possess no such constitutional authority. They may appoint or dismiss ministers and shadow ministers, but they cannot dismiss elected members of Parliament. Higgins therefore confuses two distinct constitutional offices which renders his comparison legally unsound.
The issue is whether a person exercising executive authority should continue to hold ministerial office when findings have triggered formal recommendations by the IC. That is a question unique to members of the executive and one to which Higgins’ comparisons provide no meaningful answer.
PERSUASIVE COMPARISON
If Higgins wished to make a persuasive comparison, he should have examined how previous governments treated Cabinet ministers and not members of Parliament when faced with serious integrity or corruption allegations. Instead, he compares offices with fundamentally different constitutional status and accountability mechanisms, producing an argument that is constitutionally deficient.
Equally striking is the Opposition’s inability to recognise the depth of the problem.
The PNP, in demanding Wheatley’s removal, missed the deeper issue of Holness’ quagmire in how to resolve the matter without appearing unprincipled.
The Opposition failed to identify the real issue, that is, that the PM, by virtue of his own unresolved IC controversy, has placed himself in an invidious position that undermines public confidence in his ability to enforce standards of accountability. That is the governance question the country should have been debating.
Instead, the Opposition appears content to pursue the obvious headline while missing the more consequential governance issue.
This reflects a broader weakness in our political culture. Mature democracies appreciate that accountability extends beyond personal misconduct to ensuring that leaders are not compromised, or perceived to be compromised, when exercising their judgment. Keir Starmer’s recent resignation is an example of how modern democracies increasingly recognise that a leader’s credibility and capacity to govern can become politically unsustainable even in the absence of criminal wrongdoing. The issue is not limited to legal culpability, but maintaining public confidence in the integrity of executive leadership. Jamaica should expect no less from our leaders.
Increasingly, there is a growing perception that the Opposition is asleep at the wheel. That perception is especially striking given that it is led by one of the most intellectually formidable figures in Jamaican politics. Intelligence alone, however, is not enough. Effective oppositions identify defining political contradictions and relentlessly expose them.
Ultimately, this debate should not be about whether the JLP or the PNP is more hypocritical, but whether Jamaica is prepared to apply the same standards of political accountability to all. Our greatest democratic weakness is political tribalism, where loyalty to party overrides loyalty to constitutional principles. Until that changes, accountability will remain selective and public confidence in our leaders and democratic institutions will continue to erode.
Jalil Dabdoub is an attorney at law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com
