THE Jamaica Chamber of Commerce (JCC) on Saturday chastised the Integrity Commission over its handling of a conflict of interest report and the ruling on that matter involving the prime minister, saying that it reflects poor judgement and a reckless disregard for the impact it would have on the country.

According to the business advocacy group, it “has watched with alarm and dismay the unfolding events surrounding the seemingly inept release of information” issued by the commission on the investigation involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness and the awarding of two contracts to a company owned by a friend of his 14 years ago when he was education minister.

The chamber was responding to the commission’s rejection of allegations of misstep after it tabled a report last Tuesday in Parliament stating that Holness was referred for corruption charges, before sending the decision of its director of corruption prosecution two days later in which the director, Keisha Prince-Kameka, had ruled that he should not be charged.

The commissioners had said that once the report into the Holness matter was sent to the director of corruption prosecution, as required by the law, she submitted her ruling dated January 12, 2023 to the commission.

“The commissioners, not having had the opportunity to read, understand and discuss it, took time to do so.

“The report was sent to Parliament and was tabled on February 14, 2023. Confirmation of the tabling was communicated to the commission on February 15, 2023. The commission’s review of the ruling, having been finalised, instruction was given on the said February 15, 2023 for it to be published, and the publication was done on February 16, 2023,” the directors said.

Arguing that they acted in strict compliance with the law, the commissioners said that there is no provision in the Integrity Commission Act mandating the tabling of a ruling by the director of corruption prosecution.

“Notwithstanding that there is no provision for the tabling of a ruling, the commission has taken the position that in the interest of full and early disclosure such a ruling ought to be communicated to Parliament, and the public advised,” the commissioners added.

“The Integrity Commission wishes to assure the public that it takes its task seriously. It rejects any assertion that there has been any misstep in the proceedings. In all matters under the commission’s purview every effort is made to follow the provisions of the law strictly. The ruling of the director of corruption prosecution in a matter does not change the content of the report of the director of investigation. They are independent in their operations,” the commissioners said on Friday.

However, on Saturday the JCC pointed out that, in the first instance, the commission recommended conflict of interest charges against the prime minister, and then in a second but materially delayed instance, noted that the commission’s director of corruption prosecution had already ruled, prior to the release of the recommendation for charges, that the matter did not rise to the level warranting prosecution.

“To say that a delay of such salient information, as contained in their second release — in a matter with such grave implications — requires justification of the highest standard, is an understatement,” the JCC said.

“We have seen nothing in the subsequent clarification issued by the Integrity Commission that explains its handling of the matter. It is the delay, and specifically the length of the delay, that has caused immeasurable damage to the Office of the Prime Minister and the international reputation of our country. This remains unexplained and, in our view, unjustified,” the chamber added.

“We understand the argument that the law mandates that the tabling of the investigative report and the ruling could not be executed simultaneously, but nothing that we have read suggests that a delay beyond five minutes (to be generous) was required by said law. A delay of more than 24 hours, given the fallout that must have been foreseen and in fact has now been realised, appears unacceptable and, frankly, unforgivable,” the JCC argued.

The advocacy group said it “firmly supports the tenet that no one is beyond scrutiny, but in this episode the commission’s handling reflects poor judgement, at best, and amounts to, at least, reckless disregard for the impact its reporting would have on the country”.

“For this alone we require further justification. Absent such, we call for swift accountability and consequence at the highest level of the commission. Only then can we begin to repair the immense and painful loss of credibility that has resulted,” the JCC said.