BOTH Government and Opposition members of the Integrity Commission (IC) Oversight Committee are questioning the circumstances which led former People’s National Party (PNP) Member of Parliament for Westmoreland Central Dwayne Vaz being charged for breaching the IC Act.

An IC report stating that Vaz was to be charged for failing to file his statutory declarations for 2019 was tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, April 23.

However Vaz, in a statement issued that same afternoon, said that on May 18, 2021 the IC confirmed that his statutory declarations up to December 31, 2019 had been duly completed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Vaz went to court on Tuesday, April 30 and pleaded guilty to not complying with provisions of the Act. He will return to court on June 6, 2024 for sentencing.

On Thursday, Government member Delroy Chuck first brought up the matter during the committee’s sitting, noting that he does not understand why Vaz was in court if his statutory declarations had been certified, as stated in a letter from the IC addressed to Vaz.

Opposition Member Julian Robinson said he was seeking clarity from the commission about the letter signed by Director of Information and Complaints Craig Beresford.

“I’d like to confirm that this letter was actually sent by Mr Beresford to Mr Vaz. And, if it was in fact sent by him, then I’m asking the Integrity Commission to explain the basis under which Mr Vaz has been found to be in contravention of any provision of the Integrity Commission Act,” Robinson said.

According to the commission, Vaz had filed his statutory declarations for 2019 on March 30, 2020, in keeping with his obligation as a legislator. However, the IC wrote to him on November 3, 2020 requesting a financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2019 for a company named Estelar Global Services Limited, for which he was one of two directors between 2014 and 2021.

Vaz, the IC said, was given a November 16, 2020 deadline. Several reminders were issued to him when the deadline elapsed. On December 7, 2020 contact was made with Vaz via cellphone and e-mail, reminding him of the information requested, to which he responded a day later requesting until December 18, 2020 to provide the outstanding information.

The commission said that subsequently a notice to discharge liability was served on Vaz on February 18, 2021, wherein he was given 30 days to pay a fixed penalty of $250,000 to Tax Administration Jamaica and submit the outstanding information to the IC.

“Checks made with the Information and Complaints Division revealed that, on March 5, 2021, prior to the expiration of the notice to discharge liability, Mr Vaz provided the requested information,” the IC said. However, upon the expiration of the notice to discharge liability period on March 11, 2021, the payment of fixed penalty was not made.

As such, the IC’s director of investigation concluded that Vaz failed to discharge his liability consistent with Section 43(3) of the Integrity Commission Act and referred the report to the IC’s director of corruption prosecution for consideration.

On Thursday, Government Member of the committee Marlene Malahoo Forte said the matter surrounding Vaz has raised many questions and brings into focus the motive of the commission and the message being sent.

“The question, I believe, that arises is what message has been sent by the IC and whether that is truly what Parliament intended. So, in circumstances where, for example, the requested information is something that is outside of your control, you have to rely on a third party to get that information. In the case, from my reading, the accountant in question had not supplied the requested information, and not only was it not supplied, but there was a death during the COVID period…

“And, as we wonder about the messages being sent, what really is the intent? A question arises, what was the utility in those circumstances? If you issue a document to the declarant that could cause the declarant to believe that he had satisfied his obligation — notwithstanding that he may not have paid the fine — in all of the circumstances was it the better approach to take. I think those are some of the questions that I hear arising from that matter,” she said.

Another Government Member, Everald Warmington, said he would like to know what is the relevance of Section 42 (3)(a) of the IC Act in this matter.

“If you issue a certification for a particular year, how can you still be asking for the documents? So I need to know the relevance of this section, or whether or not this section is being abused,” he said.

The committee agreed to convene a meeting early next week at which time the commission will be invited to explain the report and to answer the questions that have been posited by members.