Before Someone Becomes a Lawmaker: Public Office Requires Public Trust

The BC Prosecution Service has announced that Jordan Kealy, MLA for Peace River North, has been charged with one count of sexual assault. The BC Prosecution Service has also confirmed that a Special Prosecutor was appointed because the accused is an elected public official.

The criminal court process must now proceed independently and fairly. Every person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.

At the same time, accountability is not limited to the courtroom.

Criminal courts determine whether an offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Public institutions have a separate responsibility to maintain public confidence, uphold accountability, and demonstrate leadership while legal proceedings are underway.

But this moment also raises a broader question.

Political parties are gatekeepers to public office.

They recruit candidates, vet candidates, nominate candidates, support candidates, and ultimately ask the public to place trust in those individuals as lawmakers and decision-makers. Communities therefore have a legitimate interest in understanding what standards exist to identify and respond to concerns involving sexual violence, violence against women, harassment, coercive control, and abuse before individuals become elected officials.

Public confidence is shaped not only by what happens after charges are approved. It is also shaped by how concerns are received, assessed, and addressed before a situation reaches that point.

Increasingly, communities want to know not only whether an individual will be held accountable, but whether institutions acted responsibly when concerns first emerged. They want to know what was known, when it was known, who was responsible for acting, and what actions were taken in response.

For decades, Battered Women’s Support Services has worked with survivors navigating systems where warning signs were minimized, concerns were dismissed, reports were fragmented across institutions, or responsibility was deferred until harm became impossible to ignore.

Violence against women is rarely sustained because no one knows.

More often, warning signs are downplayed, normalized, explained away, treated as private matters, or regarded as someone else’s responsibility. Action is delayed until public exposure, legal intervention, or tragedy forces a response.

This reality is familiar to many survivors. The harm they describe is often not limited to a single act of violence. Many speak about raising concerns, seeking help, attempting to be believed, or watching warning signs go unaddressed. Similar questions have emerged repeatedly in public cases involving individuals in positions of authority and trust.

The issue is not whether someone is entitled to due process. They are.

The issue is whether public institutions recognize that due process and public accountability are not competing principles. Both are necessary. Both are essential to maintaining confidence in democratic institutions.

When serious criminal charges involving sexual violence are approved against an elected official, communities are entitled to ask what accountability looks like while the legal process unfolds. They are also entitled to ask how someone came to occupy a position of public trust, what safeguards existed, and how concerns were addressed along the way.

Survivors and communities are watching how institutions respond.

They are watching whether accountability is treated as a public responsibility or postponed until after a legal outcome is reached. They are watching whether warning signs are taken seriously or minimized. They are watching whether leadership carries responsibilities beyond avoiding conviction.

Court proceedings will determine the outcome of the criminal case. Public confidence will also be shaped by how institutions account for the decisions, standards, and actions that brought us to this point.

Public office is not simply a position. It is a responsibility that depends on public trust. The questions that matter most are not only about what happens now, but what happened before someone was entrusted with the authority to represent the public.