THE EDITOR, Madam:The Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal’s (JAMP’s) press release published in The Gleaner on June 23 highlights sharp inconsistency on the part of Prime Minister Holness in delaying a removal of Dr Andrew Wheatley from the Cabinet. To his credit this is not how he acted in the past. So why differently now? And what are we to make of Wheatley’s four-year concealment that he was under investigation?The first question leads on to the structural point that the JAMP’s analysis is making. This is the need for appointments as important as Cabinet to be embedded in a framework of candidate criteria, standards of behaviour and some form of public clearance.  Good governance requires safeguards of this kind, is what the accountability organisation, JAMP, is saying. This is what is implied in this second Wheatley episode and the ‘lesson’ to be drawn from this one.It is the second question that gives importance to this lesson. When he was re-appointed to the Cabinet last September, Wheatley kept his IC investigation into very serious crimes (which he reportedly became aware of in May 2022), allegedly concealed from the Prime Minister. He had kept it also reportedly concealed from parliamentary colleagues for the previous three years, probably in both instances motivated by his personal conviction of innocence. And his innocence until proven guilty must be flagged at this and every stage.However, Wheatley’s failure to understand the importance of transparency and accountability was a grave mistake on his part. The charges he will be called on to answer to, go back over a dozen years. They are serious. They bring home the need, JAMP is pointing out, to put the whole matter on a different footing – on the level of a governance structure. There has to be for every member of parliament and Cabinet a formal prior clearance of any IC charge or investigation. Something of this kind was earlier requested and attempted by Prime Minister and Opposition Leader of their respective members but at the discretion of each. This is insufficient. A clearance requirement should be put on a statutory basis. Both PM and Opposition Leader must be told who of their members is under charge or investigation. If despite such knowledge an appointment is made or supported, an explanation will be rightly demanded.