EARLIER this week in this column, we reported on the need for transparency to ensure public confidence in the police probe into allegations of corruption.

Yesterday, we got the answer to that call.

Police Commissioner Clayton Fernander advised that there will be no further statements regarding the investigation, other than to note that it is still ongoing. This will be the case until the investigation is complete.

Meanwhile, Minister of National Security Wayne Munroe said that following the statement that he defers to the judgement of the Royal Bahamas Police Force “in exercising their constitutional function”.

He added: “I reiterate my confidence in the Security and Intelligence Branch’s ability, competence, and professionalism to conduct this investigation with probity and expedition.”

Previously, it had been announced that international investigators from the UK would be arriving to play a role in the investigation. That arrival appears to have been delayed. When asked for comment on the reasons for that delay, or a new arrival date, the police force did not respond.

When this investigation was launched, Commissioner Fernander had this to say: “The Royal Bahamas Police Force remains dedicated to transparency, accountability, and the trust placed in us by the Bahamian people. We will continue to provide updates as the investigation progresses and ensure that appropriate actions are taken based on the findings.”

Yesterday’s about-turn on such a promise came with an explanation that it was “upon advice”.

Quite who the advice came from was not explained.

Police said that the decision was “in order not to compromise the investigation”.

Commissioner Fernander said that the investigation “is proceeding with integrity and dispatch”.

We are now in a position where a police investigation into police corruption will provide no further public updates and, it would seem, we simply have to take the police force’s word for it that it is progressing at pace, and that we cannot even find out when the promised international investigators will be in the country.

This is the exact opposite of what will provide public confidence.

It is also the exact opposite of what the commissioner himself promised at the start of the investigation.

There have been calls for more transparency.

Former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis has called for a commission of inquiry into the matter, calls that have been opposed by Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell.

Free National Movement chairman Dr Duane Sands has criticised the police for silence on the case – but it would seem he is as likely to get an answer from the force on the status of the investigation as any of the rest of us now.

Without transparency, there is little to provide accountability or to ensure that the investigation progresses apace from an external point of view.

Should the investigation end in an absence of charges or disciplinary measures, what then? We simply accept that everything was done and nothing was found to be wrong? Innocence is of course the presumption in all cases – and that may well be the finding, but for it to emerge privately and be taken on trust is asking for a lot of faith from the public.

A reminder for justice to be done it must also be seen to be done. Whether that leads to innocence or guilt is a different matter, but it is exactly why the transparency of the investigation is important.

But we have our answer. Transparency is no longer being offered.