COMMISSIONERS of Integrity Commission (IC), after failing to honour repeated requests to meet with the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee of Parliament, will face the body on October 3.

Chairman of the committee Edmund Bartlett made the disclosure on Tuesday, following a lengthy debate on a motion brought by Opposition committee Member Julian Robinson calling on the oversight body to request both Houses of Parliament to support the Integrity Commission’s recommendation for the probe into Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s statutory declarationsto be referred to the Financial Investigation Division (FID).

Bartlett, who had been reluctant to put the matter to the vote, had explained that he felt the commissioners should appear before the committee to answer the questions raised before the motion was taken. He was, however, pressed by Opposition committee member Phillip Paulwell, who had seconded the motion.

In relenting, a sardonic Bartlett, following the vote, remarked, “well it is very clear that the motion has been defeated”.

“We are expecting to have a meeting with the commission on October 3,” he said.

In the motion, which was roundly defeated four to two when put to the vote, Robinson had urged the oversight committee to support the recommendation of IC for the matter to be referred to FID.

The Integrity Commission, in its special report submitted under Section 36:3 of the Integrity Commission Act to Parliament on September 5, 2024, urged Parliament to support the referral of its investigation report into the statutory declaration submitted by Holness for the years 2019 to 2022, in respect of concerns that “he owns assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings and that he made false statements in his statutory declarations by way of omissions, contrary to law”, to the FID.

According to IC, there can be no finality in the matter until the FID has completed its work, and there can be no certification of the statutory declarations of the prime minister until the director of information and complaints is satisfied that the statutory declaration has been duly completed. Further, the director of investigations has indicated that he is unable to make a final conclusion on the question of illicit enrichment due in part to the refusal of the prime minister to share with the Integrity Commission a breakdown of his expenses for the referenced period of the investigation.

In the debate which lasted well over an hour Government committee member Everald Warmington said, “the letter is asking us to support the submission of this to FID, but I think it would have been proper if the support was sought before it was submitted. It has already been submitted to the FID so why ask for support at this stage? Secondly, I don’t believe it is within the remit of the Integrity Commission to submit such report to any other body except Parliament. It’s not in their remit to seek to initiate an investigation; they are totally out of order”.

An observation by Opposition committee member Phillip Paulwell that, “I have never heard of any instances where we have not accepted the recommendations of the commission,” was met with scepticism by Bartlett who said, “The need for a motion to enable the committee to do what is customary seems a little curious at this time.”

Government committee member Delroy Chuck, for his part, said he was “appalled that the Integrity Commission can present a report which, by their own indication, is incomplete, [much less to] further ask for investigation by the FID and the TAJ, and now asking that Parliament support this recommendation is the substance of this motion”.

“What you have here is a report that has not implicated the prime minister in any material way. What this report has done is to leave nothing but speculation from page one to page 171. It has come to no conclusion, and because it has failed to come to any conclusion it is now asking for the FID and the TAJ to assist it in coming to some conclusion. I cannot support the present motion,” he said.

Wading into the debate, Government committee member Pearnel Charles Jr said the motion solidified for him “the importance of us as a committee ensuring that the Integrity Commission and the officers are brought before us before this moves any further”.

He added: “I wonder if we ought not to be calling the IC before us to discuss the matter, to really investigate and determine: Is this a matter of malicious prosecution where clearly you see the inclusion of things intended to harm the declarant rather than to seek justice? These are matters we have to explore because it is highly inappropriate, in my view, for an investigation to be completed and for there to now be an effort to redetermine the matter.”

The Opposition’s Robinson, in responding, said: “It is in the interest of a country to have finality on the matter and not have the matter remain outstanding, for it to be referred so you can have a conclusion — and that is the basis on which the motion I moved today is, in my view, something that will bring closure one way or another in the interest of the declarant.”

Retorting Chuck, who described the requests being made by the commission as “fishing”, said the IC should be mandated to certify the prime minister’s declarations.

In the meantime, Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte, in her remarks, said “there are many questions that require answer in how the Integrity Commissions has performed its duties”.

“I am not in support of the motion for the simple reason that the Integrity Commission does not require my approval nor the Parliament’s approval to refer the matter to the FID because it has the power — and from all indications it has already exercised that power,” she said.

“I join my colleagues in emphasising the critical importance of audience with the commission. The law does say the commission is accountable to the Parliament. This matter is way too important for anybody to be flexing any muscle or giving any indication that questions that naturally arise should not properly be answered. I look forward to the commissioners coming; they have not yet come before us inspite of the requests that have been made repeatedly.”