The Integrity Commission (IC) says it is prepared to give urgent attention to the matters of concern raised by Government House leaders Ed Bartlett and Kamina Johnson Smith last week, but insists that it needs to be furnished with “cogent and unequivocal information” on which it can rely in order to conduct an investigation.

At the same time, IC chair Justice (Ret’d) Carol Lawrence-Beswick reminded the two legislators that Section 6 of the Integrity Commission Act provides, in part, that the commission “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority other than the court by way of judicial review… ”

Justice Lawrence-Beswick was responding on Monday to a letter sent to her by Bartlett and Johnson Smith last Friday objecting to the appointment of Roneiph Lawrence as acting director of corruption prosecution at the IC and asking her to investigate the circumstances that led to the departure of two senior officials from the anti-corruption body.

Bartlett, the leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives, and Johnson Smith, government senate leader, had asked Lawrence-Beswick for her urgent intervention for a prompt and thorough interrogation of the matters to ensure that “fairness, professionalism, and justice are allowed to prevail at the Integrity Commission and to be seen to so prevail”.

In the matter relating to Lawrence, the two House leaders pointed to a social media post on January 26 this year by People’s National Party General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell which contained a photograph of him in the company of Lawrence at what purports to be Lawrence’s wedding.

“Dr Campbell provides context for this photo in his description of Lawrence as his friend of over 20 years, dating back to Chancellor Hall/university days,” Bartlett and Johnson Smith said in the letter.

Noting that Lawrence’s appointment at the IC is posted on the entity’s website, Bartlett and Johnson Smith assured Justice Lawrence-Beswick that they do not, for a moment, question Lawrence’s professional qualifications, nor do they question any individual’s constitutional right of affiliation, or seek to interfere in the operations of the commission.

“However, as an eminent retired jurist you would well appreciate the fact that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly and demonstrably done. With respect to the Integrity Commission, the bar would undoubtedly be even higher,” they said in the letter.

They also claimed that in late 2024, “Dr Campbell used a political platform to make particular comments about a case which, it subsequently came to public attention, was being considered for pursuit by the Integrity Commission.

“Furthermore, in circumstances where, prior to your assumption of the chair, actions and utterances of certain members of the executive leadership of the commission raised questions in the public domain regarding fairness and the appearance of bias within the institution, we believe the aforementioned matter should not be ignored,” the House leaders said.

Lawrence, who replaced Keisha Prince-Kameka, took up the key role recently and under the Integrity Commission Act is now the final decision-maker on whether the commission elects to pursue criminal prosecution of public officials who are under investigation.

The House leaders said they were moved to register their “serious concern” regarding Lawrence’s appointment as acting director of corruption prosecution and his possible permanent appointment to the post.

They also said their concerns extend to media reports suggesting that the former director of corruption prosecution was pressured to not seek a renewal of her contract “due to a lawful decision she made”.

As such, they asked the IC chair to use her good office to investigate whether the former director of corruption prosecution “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”.

In relation to the other IC official whose departure has raised concern, Bartlett and Johnson Smith said that widely circulated reports in both traditional and social media suggest that the individual, a senior investigator, resigned from the commission after a statement she had submitted to the IC was excluded from a report it submitted to Parliament due to the intervention of an influential official at the commission.

“The reports suggest that the formal statement submitted by the investigator had raised serious concerns about unethical practices during the conduct of a certain probe of high public interest,” the House leaders noted in their letter to Lawrence-Beswick.

“We again trust, and indeed respectfully suggest, that this matter be the subject of enquiry by the commissioners or, should greater independence be required in the interest of justice in the particular circumstances, any other relevant agency,” they said.

In her response, Lawrence-Beswick said she was amenable to addressing the concerns and that she was heartened by the fact that “we share a belief in certain principles which you have embraced in your communication, and which I regard as being fundamental to any ‘interrogation’ by the commission.

“We are, therefore, agreed that any such ‘interrogation’ would have to be conducted as fairly, impartially, and transparently as is possible. Justice would no doubt have to be done, not only in the eyes of the parliamentarians, but also in the eyes of the persons against whom complaint or allegation is being made,” Justice Lawrence-Beswick told the legislators, adding, “A primary component of a carefully conducted ‘interrogation’ is relevant, cogent evidence.”

In reference to the concern raised about the acting director of corruption prosecution, the IC chair said, “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”.

She also told the legislators that 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.

Additionally, Lawrence-Beswick said, “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 … ‘shall regard and deal with as secret and confidential, all information, statutory declarations, government contracts, prescribed licences and all other matters relating to any matter before the commission…’”

She said the commission “is mindful of the fact that its decisions are open to scrutiny and thus operates under the policy that any conflicts of interest are declared and, where they exist, the employee recuses him/herself and thereafter has nothing to do with that particular matter”.

In relation to the issue regarding the previous director of corruption prosecution the IC chair told the House leaders that they have not provided any reference to the particular decision that has caused their concern.

She said it is clear that the answers to their concerns, “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”.

Justice Lawrence-Beswick gave a similar response to the legislators’ concern about the resignation of a senior investigator, saying, “Unfortunately, this concern, as outlined in your communication, is bereft of sufficient details to adequately inform an enquiry.”

Added the IC chair: “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.

“In order for there to be a fair, impartial and transparent interrogation there not only needs to be the specific questions which you have in fact posed but, equally importantly, there must be specific cogent information from which the interrogation can be commenced.”