Jamaica Broilers Group has spent most of this year asking investors to trust a repair job they cannot inspect. By November 30, the board has promised to set out its remediation programme and timeline. It should publish the Cube Corporate Support governance review alongside it.

Start with how the review came about. In January, the board hired Cube to examine JBG’s corporate governance framework, including internal controls and risk-mitigation strategies, with work beginning on February 2. That came days after news of a $15 billion financing package arranged by NCB Capital Markets, which was conditional on the company carrying out its corporate overhaul. The review was, in effect, part of the price of rescue. Lenders who backed it and shareholders who absorbed the losses both have a direct stake in what it found.

The damage was substantial. The restatement erased about $22 billion from accumulated retained earnings and left the group with negative equity at May 2025, followed this year by a $6.8 billion loss. The previous auditor, PwC Jamaica, qualified the 2025 financial statements because no search of electronic communications had been carried out, despite the scale of the irregularities. That gap surfaced through an audit opinion, not a voluntary disclosure.

Today the board holds the final Cube report but has not released it, and plans a retreat to decide which remedial actions to approve. The result is that shareholders will see the board’s chosen response without the diagnosis behind it. They will have no way to tell whether a recommendation was rejected or diluted, or whether the fixes match the failures Cube identified.

The arguments against publication deserve a fair hearing. Governance reviews often contain blunt assessments of named individuals. JBG may face legal exposure in the US over the irregularities, and some material may be privileged or commercially sensitive. These concerns are real, but they argue for redaction, not secrecy. At a minimum, JBG could release an executive summary with every recommendation listed and the board’s decision on each: accepted, modified or rejected, with reasons.

Board composition makes the case stronger. The US failures happened in a division run by the group president’s brother. A governance review at a family-linked company carries more weight when outsiders can read its conclusions. Setting up a finance committee chaired by independent director Edward Barber was a sensible step. Publishing the review would be a clearer signal still.

There is also a consistency point. When the independent email review found no further irregularities, JBG put that conclusion before the market promptly. Findings that may be less comfortable should get the same treatment. Shareholders cannot assess a remediation programme against a report they are not allowed to see, and November 30 is the right moment to change that.