Cabinet minister Everald Warmington is calling for the prosecutorial powers vested in the Integrity Commission, through the post of director of corruption prosecution, to be removed.

In a multi-pronged submission brought on Wednesday to the joint select committee of Parliament reviewing the Integrity Commission Act, Warmington argued that, with the commission being a committee of Parliament, maintaining prosecutorial powers “would have the effect of Parliament setting up its own investigative arm, which proceeds to criminally prosecute a special category of persons”.

He insisted that this is inconsistent with Jamaica’s democracy and constitutional arrangement, where crimes are investigated by the police, and prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Warmington was speaking in his capacity as Member of Parliament for St Catherine South Western.

“The provision of the Act which vests prosecutorial powers in the commission should be deleted, as those powers are constitutionally vested in the DPP,” he stated.

Also, he wants the Act to be amended to give people against whom the commission makes adverse findings an opportunity to respond before reports are tabled in Parliament.

The call for public officials against whom the commission has made an adverse finding to be given the chance to respond before a report is tabled comes in the wake of a report which the commission tabled in Parliament in February, stating that it had referred Prime Minister Andrew Holness to Director of Corruption Prosecution Keisha Prince-Kameka, despite her ruling, on January 12, 2023, that “no criminal charges can be laid” against him as additional material made available “failed to contradict or provide more evidence in support of the offences contemplated”.

Warmington recommended that Section 20 of the Contractor General Act — which was amalgamated with the Parliament Integrity of Members Act and the Corruption Prevention Act to establish the Integrity Commission — should be reinserted to clarify procedures that are to be followed after the commission completes an investigation.

“A number of the provisions were repealed and reinserted in the [Integrity Commission] Act except Section 20, which deals with the procedure after investigations,” he said, noting that the section made provisions for the contractor general to, where practicable, inform individuals against whom there was an adverse finding, of the substance of the report. He pointed out that there are similar provisions found in the Financial Administration Act which governs investigations by the auditor general.

“The wisdom of the inclusion of this provision in the Contractor General Act, which was clearly omitted by oversight in the Integrity Commission Act, was based on our constitutional guarantee requirement for fairness in legal proceedings, particularly where those proceedings may lead to adverse consequences for the person under investigation. Where there is a negative or adverse finding, that person ought to have an opportunity to comment and respond to the report before it is sent to Parliament,” Warmington proposed.

Additionally, the response of the person against whom the adverse finding is made should accompany the commission’s finding when it is being submitted to Parliament, he insisted.

He argued that no credible reason has been given to Parliament for the omission of the section, and that an amendment should be made to the Act to include a provision which captures the reasoning.

Warmington also recommended that the auditor general be removed as a member of the commission. This is not the first time the MP has publicly registered his discontent with the post of auditor general being appointed to the commission.

“I have come to the view, supported by legal research, that inclusion of the auditor general as a member of the commission may be unconstitutional. The inclusion of the office of the auditor general compromises the institutional role, function, and duties of the auditor general, as set out in the constitution and the Financial Administration and Audit Act,” he told the review committee, pointing out that being on the commission compromises the auditor general’s mandate to audit all agencies of the State, including the commission.

He stressed that the removal of the auditor general from the commission does no harm to the body, as the auditor general may, at any time, conduct an audit of the commission.

Furthermore, he wants filing of statutory declarations by members of the commission to be gazetted to ensure transparency.