The Anti-Corruption Commission has declined to release the names of candidates who have taken its anti-corruption pledge, saying it “might draw a negative inference for those that have not”.
In a statement following queries from the Cayman Compass, issued just two days before voters head to the polls, the commission said it, together with the Elections Office, “understand[s] that there has been some concern” that the publication of the names of those candidates who publicly signed the pledge could cast those who have not in a bad light.
“It was therefore agreed that we would no longer publish the participating candidates’ names. For the avoidance of doubt, we note that the affirmation of both the Candidate’s and the Voter’s Pledges are only one of the many tools used to promote anti-corruption efforts,” the joint statement from the commission and the Elections Office said.
On 15 March, the commission, together with the Elections Office, launched the General Election Against Corruption Today, or ACT, education campaign to “promote more accountability, transparency, better governance and desires to denounce any form of corruption in the Cayman Islands as a whole”.
The commission said the driving force behind the campaign was to support the Elections Office’s efforts to enforce the fight against corruption as set out in the Elections Act.
“There continues to be a growing public call for accountability, transparency and better governance, and to denounce any form of corruption in the Cayman Islands as a whole which was reinforced by the extension of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption to the Cayman Islands late last year,” it said.
In addition, the Elections Office highlighted the ACT campaign in a special presentation which was attended by 120 agents and eight candidates.
“The ACC and the Elections Office wish to extend sincere thanks to the candidates and general public for the support expressed since the launch of the campaign,” the statement said.
“This support has been highlighted through candidates’ advocacy against corruption during debates, public forums and campaign meetings; and by voters through seemingly increased reporting and complaints of voter influence and public concerns about some activities and comments on the campaign trail.”