PRIME Minister Dr Andrew Holness took the first round in his battle with the Integrity Commission (IC) on Friday when the Supreme Court granted his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the commission’s report on his statutory declarations.

Holness was also granted leave to seek an order to quash the August 30, 2024 IC report, as well as the commission’s special report, save for a paragraph which recommended development of a policy concerning ministers of Government and potential conflicts of interest.

The prime minister’s attorneys, in petitioning the Supreme Court to review the legality of the actions of the IC during its probe of his statutory declarations, had argued that the reports, which have been made public, “are tainted and ought to be struck down”.

The court, in its ruling handed down on Friday, said the threshold test for leave to bring a judicial review claim has been met.

However, the court refused the prime minister’s application for orders of mandamus to compel the IC’s Director of Investigations Kevon Stephenson to recommend that he [Holness] be exonerated in relation to his 2021 and 2022 statutory declarations in such manner as the commission deems fit and in accordance with Section 54(5).

That application was refused on the basis that the court cannot, and will not, usurp the decision-making powers of public bodies and public officers.

In relation to the duties of Director of Information and Complaints Craig Beresford, applications were made to compel him to examine the reports. Although Beresford had initially stated that he did not examine the 2022 and 2023 reports, by affidavit in response to the application he stated that he had conducted the examinations. Accordingly, the court felt that it could not grant leave to do what he had already done.

In a statement welcoming the ruling the prime minister’s attorneys, Georgia Gibson Henlin, King’s Counsel and Senator Ransford Braham, King’s Counsel, said Holness does not require permission to apply for the declarations. “Therefore, the 23 declarations for relief will be included in the claim that is now fixed for first hearing on January 7, 2025.”

The prime minister is disputing claims by the IC report that he misappropriated funds from his company Positive Jamaica Foundation. Holness said the foundation is “not actively engaged in business”, and is used by him to make grants or donations or to assist persons from time to time who appeal to him for help. He said while the company is used for charitable purposes, it is not a charity and is not registered as such.

In the 179-page report into the prime minister’s statutory declarations, which was tabled in the House of Representatives in September, the commission’s director of prosecution ruled that no charges be brought against Holness for failing to declare four bank accounts during his statutory filings. The commission had raised a litany of questions in relation to bond transactions and loans taken out by companies in which at least one of his sons is connected. Questions were raised about whether the companies were compliant with their statutory filings with Tax Adminstration Jamaica (TAJ).

The tabling of the investigation report, an addendum, the commission’s ruling and the special report, marked the culmination of a two-year investigation during which the prime minister’s statutory declarations remained uncertified.

The investigation sought to ascertain whether Holness owned assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings, and if he had in fact made false statements in his statutory declarations by way of omissions, contrary to law.

The four bank accounts in question had balances totalling just under $446,000 and were in the names of Holness’s mother, father, and a former constituency worker. Holness had told Parliament that he was added to the accounts in the names of his parents and, in the case of the former constituency worker, he said he remembered encouraging her to open the bank account but did not recall how his name came to be on the account.

The commission is yet to certify the prime minister’s 2023 statutory declaration, which is not a subject of this legal battle.