“When Accountability Becomes Intimidation: The Andrew Holness Warning and the Erosion of Free Speech in Jamaica”

By Richard Hugh Blackford; Fine Artist, Author, and Social Commentator

I recently came across a Nationwide News report where Jamaica's Prime Minister Andrew Holness was issuing a warning to the country to be aware of those seeking to become famous by spreading misinformation about the ongoing Hurricane Melissa relief efforts. Holness reportedly added that he will push back against those who are seeking popularity by spreading negativity. I was taken aback by the report and wondered if I was the only one who found the comments bizarre? After all, isn't Jamaica a place which affords it citizens their freedom of speech?

The fact is that in a free society, citizens should be able to comment, criticize and hold their government to account, even during emergencies. Yet when Jamaica’s Prime Minister, Andrew Holness' warning that those attempting to “be famous” by spreading misinformation about the relief efforts for Hurricane Melissa will be “tracked” and face consequences, felt less like caution and more like a muzzle. When we stitch that remark into Holness’s broader record — signed blank resignation letters for Senators, sidelining of dissenting civil servants, encouragement of police or institutional loyalty, and repeated warnings against fake news - a very troubling pattern emerges.

First, let us look at the substance. Holness’ remark was reportedly issued in the context of his government’s response to Hurricane Melissa. Though there is merit in fighting deliberate disinformation during a crisis, the statement’s framing was alarming: it implicitly cast critics as irresponsible, fame-seeking saboteurs rather than legitimate voices. When the head of government threatens to push back, track, or otherwise penalize those who raise critical concerns, the risk is that free speech becomes the casualty, and accountability becomes optional.

Secondly, let us look at the context. This warning from Holness is not an isolated incident. Consider the following documented episodes:

• In 2013-15, as Opposition Leader, Holness required undated and pre-signed letters of resignation from incoming senators of his party. The Court of Appeal declared that practice “inconsistent with the Constitution … contrary to public policy, unlawful and accordingly null and void.” web5.jamaica-gleaner.com+3Jamaica Observer+3Jamaica Gleaner+3

• In 2015 the pressure mounted for Holness to resign following the court’s finding on those letters. Jamaica Observer

• More recently, in June 2024, Holness vowed to “crack down on fake news online” and warned bloggers and social-media influencers that they could be tracked and held to account. Jamaica Gleaner+1

• In the U.S. State Department’s 2022 “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices”, Jamaica was criticized for government officials (including the Prime Minister) publicly attacking domestic human-rights organisations. State Department
  

Third, we need to look at the effect. When a government, during a crisis like Hurricane Melissa, issues a public warning against negativity or misinformation, it can have a chilling effect where legitimate critics may self-censor rather than risk being branded as “misinformers”. When that type of warning is layered atop a record of institutional pressure (pre-signed resignations, intolerance of internal dissent), the line between safeguarding truth and suppressing dissent gets dangerously thin.

Fourthly is the deeper issue. Emergencies demand transparency, not silence. In the wake of Hurricane Melissa; a storm that overwhelmed infrastructure, displaced thousands and exposed planning failures — the last thing a leader should do is discourage scrutiny. The expectations that the public has of its government is to prepare, respond, and recover. We expect the public to shine light on what went wrong. But when public officials frame dissent as popularity-seeking or “fake news”, we risk shifting from democratic governance toward managed consensus. That is the hallmark, not of leadership, but of despotism in the making.

Finally, there is the challenge. Members of the Jamaican public must bear in mind that Holness is still anchored in a democratic system; one in which Jamaica remains formally free. But freedom does not depend only on formalities; it depends on how power is exercised. Moments of crisis test the character of leadership. If you root dissent in suspicion instead of addressing it through openness, you surrender accountability.

In Jamaica today, the Prime Minister’s warning may be about misinformation; but given his track record and the timing of this statement, it reads as a broader signal: to watch what you say, or you may face consequences. That is not simply a storm-response policy; it is a reset of the public bargain. And for a democracy built on freedom of expression, that is the real danger.