The ability of the Integrity Commission (IC) to get information from third parties in pursuant of its investigations appears set to become more difficult.

That’s if a recommendation of the Permanent Secretaries Board made to the joint select Committee of Parliament reviewing the Integrity Commission Act (ICA) is accepted.

The board is recommending that sections 7(8) and 53(2) of the ICA be reviewed in light of the principles of natural justice. The recommendation was read by Justice Minister Delroy Chuck during Tuesday’s meeting of the JSC.

According to the permanent secretaries, “the powers afforded the IC are too wide-ranging and seem unfettered”.

They pointed to the ruling of the United Kingdom Privy Council in December 2021 that the Turks and Caicos Integrity Commission only had the power to demand documents from third parties such as banks, after formal investigations have been initiated.

“The Privy Council, in its judgment, stated that such powers did not exist in the normal course of the commission’s functions, such as reviewing statutory declarations by public officials,” the board said.

The recommendation also made reference to Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2021 from Barbados that introduces the concept of disclosure orders.

“These orders are to be issued by a judge in chambers. When the judge is satisfied that the requirements are fulfilled, the judge makes the order authorising the investigative officer to give to any person, who has information relevant to an investigation, notice in writing, to answer any question or provide any information documents specified in the document,” the board said.

The permanent secretaries therefore recommended “that the Integrity Commission Act be amended consistent with the ruling by the UK Privy Council in the Turks and Caicos matter to require that information being sought from third party institutions be done with the consent of the public official and to introduce a requirement for disclosure orders issued by a judge in chambers after careful consideration of the evidence supplied by the Integrity Commission and only in furtherance of an investigation, due notice having been served on a public official that an investigation is being pursued”.

They stated that while both sections 7(11) and sub-section 48(5) of the ICA provide for protection on the grounds of legal professional privilege regarding certain matters, both provisions fail to provide protection on the grounds of the right against self-incrimination.

Section 7(8) of the ICA states that ‘Notwithstanding any provision in any law, and subject to subsection (11), no obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information implemented by law or otherwise shall prevent a person or body from disclosing any information or producing any document to the commission in accordance with this section’.

Section 53(2) states that ‘Except as provided under subsection (1), no law which authorises or requires the refusal to answer any question or the withholding of any information or document or thing on the ground that the answering of the question or the disclosure of the information, document or thing would be injurious to the public interest shall apply in respect of any investigation conducted by the commission’.

Both member Everald Warmington, who pointed to the Privy Council ruling, and Chuck appeared ready to vote on the recommendation with Warmington stating that it was a simple yes or no vote.

However, committee Chairman Edmund Bartlett pointed out that there was a long list of recommendations, including from Jamaicans For Justice, the Ministry of Finance and Public Service,
Bess FM, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, National Integrity Action, and Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal that will also have to be considered before the vote is taken.