KINGSTON, Jamaica — Integrity Commission’s (IC) chairman, Justice Carol Lawrence Beswick, says there are insufficient details to conduct an enquiry into the appointment of the commission’s acting director of corruption prosecution, Roneiph Lawrence, due to his alleged association with general secretary of the People’s National Party (PNP), Dayton Campbell.

Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives Edmund Bartlett and Government Senate Leader Kamina Johnson Smith in a letter last Friday, called on the commission’s chair for an urgent intervention for a prompt and thorough interrogation into “several concerns.”

READ: Gov’t objects to key Integrity Commission appointment due to PNP link

But, Beswick, in her response to the letter on Monday, stated that for a prompt and thorough interrogation to be done as requested by the government, there needs to be sufficient details to adequately inform an enquiry.

“The urgent intervention which you seek for a ‘prompt and thorough interrogation’ of the mentioned matters, can only be fairly done with cogent, specific information,” Beswick said.

“The first concern to which you refer in the communication is regarding Mr (Roneiph) Lawrence’s appointment as acting director of corruption prosecution at the Integrity Commission and his possible permanent appointment to the post. You provide that one basis for that concern is ”a social media post on January 26 this year by Dr Dayton Campbell, which is being widely circulated’ and describing Mr Lawrence as his friend of over twenty (20) years. You conclude, based on your belief in the accuracy of that social media post, that ‘any decision taken by Mr Lawrence in respect of members of the political fraternity will certainly be open to question. In view of the fact that we agree that we do not question any individual’s constitutional right of association, any question about his decision making, and/ or suitability for filling that appointment, must, therefore, be considered with that right in mind,” Beswick said.

“Indeed, any decision taken by the commission should be open to be questioned by the public, including political parties, as to the manner in, and the basis on, which the decision was taken. A complete answer should be provided as far as the Integrity Commission Act allows. No doubt, your Parliamentary colleagues will recall that it was your goodselves who placed certain restrictions on what can lawfully be revealed by the commission, stating at section 56 of the Integrity Commission Act that a person concerned in the administration of this Act,” she continued.

She stressed that “actions of the Integrity Commission which cause you, or indeed the general public, concern, will receive the urgent attention of the commission provided that the commission is given cogent and unequivocal information on which it can rely.”

Further, Beswick noted that the answers to the questions raised as to whether the former corruption prosecution director in fact came under pressure due to her lawful decision from whence did that pressure emanate; and the extent to which that alleged pressure may have contributed to her not seeking renewal in the post despite her being widely known to be of excellent repute in the conduct of her profession to date,” would be require the input of the former corruption prosecution director herself whose five year statutory term of office with the commission has already ended.

“My attention has not been brought to any complaint, or even comment, made by her, either to the commission, or to any other entity, concerning the questions you ask to be interrogated,” she added.