Cayman has launched a year-long campaign built around integrity, transparency and accountability. Its own history shows why turning those principles into practice matters.

Good governance is easy to endorse. The harder part is making it work. That is the challenge now facing the Cayman Islands after the Commission for Standards in Public Life launched its Good Governance Campaign 2026, a year-long programme backed publicly by Governor Jane Owen and Premier André Ebanks.

Its theme is deliberately inclusive: “Good Governance Begins with Us.” The campaign deserves to be taken seriously.

It promises public consultation on proposed amendments to the Standards in Public Life Act, alongside community discussions, stakeholder engagement and public education. The subjects are consequential: ethical leadership, accountability, the Register of Interests, the proposed Parliamentary Code of Conduct, appointments to public boards and reform of the legislation itself.

But Cayman has been here before. The history of the Standards in Public Life legislation demonstrates that passing rules and putting them into practice are two different things.

The original legislation was passed in 2014. It did not come into force until March 1, 2020 - almost six years later.

Announcing the planned commencement in January 2020, then-Premier Alden McLaughlin gave a lengthy explanation for the delay. Concerns had been raised about the effect of the legislation on people serving on statutory authority and government company boards, amendments followed in 2016, and further consultation and review continued.

McLaughlin nevertheless acknowledged the pace of implementation.

“I do regret that we have been unable to move this review along at a faster pace,” he told the Legislative Assembly.

Six years after commencement, Cayman is now preparing to revisit the framework. That need not be viewed as evidence that the system has failed. Laws governing standards in public life should evolve as experience exposes weaknesses, ambiguities or opportunities for improvement.

But the history provides an important lesson for the new campaign: good governance is ultimately measured by implementation, not intention.

The law is more than a statement of values

The Standards in Public Life Act is sometimes discussed in the language of ethics. Its provisions, however, go considerably further than an aspirational code.

The Commission is charged with helping to set high standards of integrity and competence, monitoring ethical conduct in Parliament and Cabinet, supervising the Register of Interests and investigating breaches of established standards. It is independent of the direction or control of other persons or authorities and has significant investigatory powers, including powers to summon witnesses and require documents and information.

The principles underpinning the legislation are equally clear. Persons in public life are expected to demonstrate selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Accountability means being answerable to the public and submitting to appropriate scrutiny. Openness requires public officials to be as transparent as possible about their decisions and actions. Honesty includes a duty to declare private interests relating to public duties and to resolve conflicts in a way that protects the public interest. Leadership requires those in public life to promote the principles by example.

These principles matter because disclosure is not an administrative nicety. It allows the public to identify interests that might create - or reasonably appear to create - conflicts with the exercise of public power.

The existence of an interest does not itself establish wrongdoing. Nor should registration of an interest be treated as evidence of impropriety. The purpose of transparency is precisely the opposite: disclosure allows relevant interests to be seen and assessed rather than left to speculation.

What happens when the rules are not followed?

The distinction between principle and legal obligation is important.

Under the Act, persons in public life are required to make declarations of their interests, income, assets and liabilities in accordance with statutory requirements. After the initial declaration, further declarations are due annually no later than 30 days after June 30. The Commission may, where a request is made in time and good cause exists, grant an extension of up to 60 days. Changes to previously declared matters must generally be reported within 30 days.

The legislation also sets out consequences for non-compliance. Where a person fails to file a declaration or amendment, the Commission is required to notify the appropriate authority. For an elected Member of Parliament, that means informing the Speaker.

If required information remains outstanding for one month, the Act provides for a possible penalty of up to CI $100 for each day of default, recoverable as a civil debt.

More serious conduct carries potentially more serious consequences. A person in public life who, without reasonable cause, fails to furnish a required declaration or further particulars commits an offence. The same section covers knowingly making a false declaration and certain failures to provide information or attend an enquiry.

On summary conviction, the maximum penalty is a CI $10,000 fine, two years' imprisonment, or both. A prosecution under the Act requires the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Commission also has powers to investigate suspected breaches. Where, following an enquiry, it is satisfied that a relevant breach or offence has been committed, the Act requires referral to the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Those provisions are important context for the Good Governance Campaign. They demonstrate that Cayman has already decided, through legislation, that some standards of public conduct are sufficiently important to carry enforceable consequences.

The challenge is ensuring that the framework is clear, proportionate, consistently applied and understood by both those subject to it and the public it exists to serve.

The Premier has put his Government on the record

Premier André Ebanks used the campaign launch to make his Government's position clear. He pointed to the National Coalition for Caymanians' Coalition Agreement, the Government's Strategic Policy Statement and its support for a binding proposed Parliamentary Code of Conduct.

“That is the foundation this Government stands on,” the Premier said.

That is a significant commitment. A binding proposed Parliamentary Code of Conduct could provide something that broad statements about integrity cannot: a clear framework setting out what Parliament expects of its members and what happens when those expectations are not met.

The details will matter. A credible code needs sufficiently clear rules for parliamentarians to know what is expected of them. The public needs to know what can be complained about and how. There needs to be a fair process for determining whether a breach occurred. And there needs to be a proportionate range of consequences capable of giving the rules practical effect.

There are useful lessons elsewhere.

What Cayman can learn from Westminster

The United Kingdom provides one established example, though its system should not simply be transplanted to Cayman.

Members of the House of Commons are subject to a Code of Conduct and detailed rules governing registration and declaration of financial interests. UK Parliament says the purpose of the Register is to disclose financial interests or benefits that others might reasonably consider capable of influencing what an MP says or does. Changes to registrable interests must generally be registered within 28 days.

That is an important distinction. Registration does not mean that an MP has done anything wrong. The parliamentary guidance explicitly treats openness as the objective: interests are disclosed so that the public can see them and make informed assessments.

But the UK system also demonstrates what happens when standards have an enforcement mechanism behind them. Alleged breaches can be investigated by the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Less serious breaches can, in appropriate circumstances, be resolved through a rectification process involving acknowledgement and apology. Other cases may be referred to the House of Commons Committee on Standards, which can consider whether a breach occurred and what sanction should follow.

The range of parliamentary sanctions can extend from apologies to suspension of salary, suspension from the service of the House and, at the most serious end, expulsion. Which response is appropriate depends upon the particular breach and the applicable parliamentary process.

Cayman's constitutional and legislative arrangements are different. UK parliamentary sanctions should therefore not be confused with the consequences available under Cayman law.

The comparison is useful for a different reason. It illustrates a fundamental feature of an effective standards regime: rules must be capable of producing consequences.

Without that, a code risks becoming a statement of aspiration rather than a mechanism of accountability.

Trust and scrutiny are not opposites

Governor Jane Owen placed the campaign in the wider context of Cayman's reputation.

“The Cayman Islands has built its success on the trust of its people and the confidence of the world,” she said.

That observation has particular significance for an international financial centre. Cayman expects businesses operating here to take compliance, transparency and governance seriously. Its international reputation depends in part upon the credibility of those expectations.

Public institutions should be capable of demonstrating the same seriousness. But accountability should not be mistaken for hostility towards public officials.

Scrutiny does not require an assumption of wrongdoing. A functioning disclosure system protects office-holders as well as the public because it replaces rumour and suspicion with information.

Where an interest is properly declared, the public can see it. Where a conflict arises, there can be rules for managing it. Where an allegation is made, there can be a fair process for determining it. And where no breach has occurred, the same system should be capable of establishing that too.

That is what institutional confidence looks like.

Now comes the test

Commission Chairman Woody Foster captured the central issue at the campaign's launch.

“Good governance is not an ultimate ideal state we hope to achieve - it is a standard each of us must choose to uphold, every day, in every decision,” he said.

The next year provides an opportunity to turn that proposition into something tangible. The Commission intends to consult the public and ultimately present proposed recommendations for legislative reform. Those recommendations should receive serious consideration.

The public, meanwhile, should pay attention not only to what is proposed but what ultimately happens: whether weaknesses are identified, whether sensible reforms are adopted, whether a binding proposed Parliamentary Code of Conduct progresses and whether the rules governing public life are clear enough to command confidence.

Cayman's experience since 2014 offers a caution against confusing legislation with implementation. The Governor has backed the campaign. The Premier has publicly identified good governance as part of the foundation on which his Government stands. The Commission has invited the country into a conversation about what standards in public life should mean.

Those are commitments worth welcoming. They are also commitments against which progress can fairly be measured.

Good governance may begin with all of us. For those entrusted with public power, it must also be demonstrated.