Dear Editor,

The voluminous Integrity Commission (IC) report into Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s statutory declarations for the years 2019-2022 has set off a torrent of public discussion, which sadly features more sensationalism and vulgar politicking rather than sober examination and consideration of what is before us.

There is a prevailing sentiment among some members of the public, particularly those seeking to pounce on Prime Minister Holness for politically opportunistic purposes, that critique and thorough examination of the IC’s conduct of its investigation into the statutory declarations of the prime minister are tantamount to tearing down the institution. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a place for constructive criticism, and it should be understood that the prevailing critique of the IC is intended to make it better rather than destroy it.

It should be readily understood that we are a nation of laws and not of men. The legal system underpinning our democracy ought to have, for good reason, no regard to personage, race, class, political affiliation, or creed. We are all bound by Jamaican law and enjoy the protections afforded under the constitution. Inasmuch as the prime minister, like any other citizen, has legal obligations by which he is bound, and enjoys certain rights and responsibilities, the IC has duties by which it has to abide as it discharges its mandate.

Having regard to the scourge of corruption with which Jamaica has grappled over many years, the IC enjoys the support of well-thinking Jamaicans who see the entity as our foremost combatant in the fight against corruption. That the Holness-led Government was the political Administration that established the IC pursuant to the IC Act of 2017 and has subsequently been providing the requisite budgetary support to the IC demonstrably affirms its support for an institutionalised anti-corruption framework.

The IC, however, if considered to have acted inappropriately, cannot be above reproach. After all, if we are committed to transparency, probity, and propriety in public office, we should have a vested interest in identifying any shortcoming on the part of the IC in carrying out its work. It is only by doing so that we will come away with the fair, transparent, fit-for-purpose, and confidence-inspiring IC that we should desire as well-thinking citizens. In light of all that has transpired as it relates to the IC’s investigation into the affairs of Prime Minister Holness, it is patently clear that the law governing the IC is in urgent need of revision.

It is to be noted that the IC spent the better part of three years probing the business and financial affairs of Prime Minister Holness, which was apparently triggered by its examination of his statutory declarations for calendar year 2021 and bank accounts that were not declared by him but to which his name is attached. After his probe into the matter, the IC’s director of investigations recommended to the IC’s director of corruption prosecution (DCP) that the prime minister be prosecuted for making a false declaration. In the final analysis, the IC’s recommendation was not upheld by the DCP, as the DCP, understandably and justifiably so, determined that the explanation provided by Prime Minister Holness far outweighed any evidence or suggestion to the contrary.

As the public now understands, the IC’s investigation into the affairs of the prime minister dovetailed into one which ostensibly sought to ascertain whether he had illicitly enriched himself. So thorough and detailed was the investigation that it involved the IC engaging the services of an “independent international forensic accounting examiner” to sift through the prime minister’s personal and business affairs. Despite the considerable man hours, significant financial and other investigative resources that would have gone into the IC’s investigation into the prime minister to determine whether he had illicitly enriched himself, the DI did not establish illicit enrichment on the part of Prime Minister Holness. Indeed, the DI made no finding of impropriety, unlawful acquisition of wealth, or misuse of public funds as it relates to the prime minister.

It is quite curious and concerning that in circumstances where the DI made no determination that the prime minister has illicitly enriched himself, the IC did not move to certify his statutory declarations but rather requested that Parliament seeks the services of the Financial Investigations Division (FID), as it cannot certify the prime minister’s statutory declarations without FID looking into the matter. As many legal luminaries have opined, the IC has acted outside the scope of its powers under law and has, therefore, operated ultra vires.

As it relates to the IC’s report concerning the prime minister, noted public affairs commentator Emily Crooks Shields posted on
X (formerly
Twitter): “The Integrity Commission has done a grave disservice to the country. The public has no right to a report like this wherein the IC has the statutory basis on which to work with ‘competent authority’ such as FID & TAJ during its investigation but did not.”

It is quite evident that in circumstances where the IC was unable to make a determination as to illicit enrichment, it is now seeking to have the matter referred to the FID. Separate and apart from the spectre of double jeopardy which is an issue that concerns many, the appearance of a witch-hunt cannot be overlooked.

With the IC having dispatched its report to Parliament, its investigation into this matter of illicit enrichment as far as Prime Minister Holness is concerned is now at an end. That is what its legislation stipulates. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the FID, and its existing statutory powers, the IC was able to collaborate with the FID during the course of its investigation. For reasons best known to the IC, it opted not to.

For the IC to cite at this juncture that without the FID’s probe it will not be able to act regarding certification of the prime minister’s statutory declarations is extremely untenable and should, in fact, be subjected to judicial review.

The framers of the IC Act could not have intended for the IC to operate in this manner. It is an abuse of its authority for the IC to be withholding the certification of a declarant when it has not established a basis for so doing.

Jean Clarke

jeanclarke111@yahoo.com