Our sense is it's more a case of Joseph Hibbert being pushed rather than him jumping.

Either way, it is for the better. For had Mr Hibbert continued in his job as junior minister for transport and works, he would have run the risk of sapping the moral authority of the administration and undermining Prime Minister Golding's promise of a new approach to governance; one in which integrity is not only adhered to but seen to be so.

Which is why we are surprised that it took the British bridge builders Mabey and Johnson's public admission to a London court that they corrupted Jamaican officials for Mr Golding and Mr Hibbert to act. It would have been better - as we suggested at the time - had they done so six months ago when Mr Hibbert was first implicated in the case and his home was searched by the Jamaican police and officials from Britain's Serious Fraud Office.

None of this is to suggest that Mr Hibbert is guilty of any claim against him. That is a matter for the courts after a full investigation and Mr Hibbert has had the opportunity of a fair and impartial hearing. He must be afforded natural justice.

By stepping aside, and not being distracted by the responsibilities of public office, Mr Hibbert - which we pointed out several months ago and as he accepted in his resignation statement - "has the time and freedom to clear my name and my integrity as former chief technical director in the Ministry of Transport and Works during the 1990s, to which the allegations refer".

The drafters of the statement, we suspect, inserted the timeline at the insistence of Prime Minister Golding to make it clear that the alleged transgression was not a consequence of the current administration but happened when Mr Hibbert served as a technocrat during the tenure of the People's National Party, a period, according to Mr Golding's party, of rampant corruption.

A pointed reference to the fact that Mr Hibbert resigned after a meeting with Prime Minister Golding was likely aimed at conveying the message that it was the PM who told the minister that his position in the Government had become untenable. It may have been an attempt to use an embarrassing development to burnish Mr Golding's credentials as an upholder of integrity. Which brings us back to where we started, and how, too, political calculations may trump larger concepts of governance and our adherence to them.

Mr Golding and his party may have every right to believe in, and swear by, Mr Hibbert's innocence. But as we pointed out in these columns, there were fundamental issues at stake.

Mr Hibbert is no ordinary party member; until Tuesday he was a senior member of the Government, with control over state resources as well as influence over public policy, including the action of staff in the ministry to which he was assigned.

While we do not believe that he would engage in such behaviour, Mr Hibbert was in a position where he might have compromised the investigation. He ought not to have been left by the prime minister in such an invidious position.

Our notions and ideals of governance, however, continue to develop and the Hibbert affair, however it concludes, is one we should learn from.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.