GOVERNMENT parliamentary leaders Kamina Johnson Smith and Edmund Bartlett have written to Integrity Commission (IC) chair, Justice Carol Lawrence-Beswick insisting that there is legal precedent which supports their concerns regarding the appointment of Roneiph Lawrence as acting director of corruption prosecution at the anti-corruption body.

The Government legislators were responding to Lawrence-Beswick’s reply to their letter last week registering their initial concern on the basis that People’s National Party (PNP) General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell has described Lawrence on social media as a friend of 20 years and appeared to be among Lawrence’s groomsmen during his nuptials earlier this year.

In her reply on Monday, Justice Lawrence-Beswick told Bartlett and Johnson Smith that she is prepared to give urgent attention to the matters of concern they raised, but insisted that it needs to be furnished with “cogent and unequivocal information” on which the commission can rely in order to conduct an investigation.

On Tuesday, in their response, Bartlett and Johnson Smith said that although they are certain that neither they nor the IC chair wishes to embark on an unending series of responses and counter-responses, they are of the view that the matters raised are of sufficient public interest to require a further response.

“Regarding the issue of the acting corruption prosecution director, Mr Ronieph Lawrence, his close friendship with the PNP general secretary and potential conflict of interest, we very humbly and respectfully remind of the sage decision of former Chief Justice Lord Hewart in R v Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256, to which is attributed the fundamental principle of justice not only needing to be done, but to be seen to be done. In that case, even in the absence of direct evidence and/or confirmation of interference, circumstances where justice did not appear to be done were fatal to a judicial decision being upheld,” the Government lawmakers reminded Justice Lawrence-Beswick.

They argued that so particularly powerful is the quasi-judicial role in which Lawrence now acts, they maintain their view that his appointment — to act or otherwise — in the context of his publicly acknowledged close and “20-year friendship with the strenuously adversarial PNP general secretary, at minimum, risks opening rulings by the commission up to unnecessary suspicion”.

“The further context of the publicly held concerns also outlined in our letter of April 11, 2025 strengthen the cause for concern. We hope that your good self and indeed the commission might, on reflection, in respect of this matter, elect to be guided by Lord Hewart’s wise postulation concerning the danger of not mitigating against circumstances which could support the suspicion of interference and/or justice not appearing to be done,” the Government parliamentary leaders wrote.

Bartlett and Johnson Smith also told the Integrity Commission chair that her response to their request for a probe into media reports regarding alleged improper and/or undue interference which reportedly contributed to the departure of two former senior staffers of the IC is noted, “but not without some surprise”.

They said Lawrence-Beswick might agree that the provision of proof in advance has never been the acceptable standard applied to the commencement of an investigation by a body such as the Integrity Commission, where an enquiry is made regarding damning allegations in the public space.

“We are hopeful that upon further careful consideration you might find that making enquiries of relevant individuals is a process which could possibly bring you and the commission closer to determining the truth in respect of both matters, and that such an approach is not only in the interest of ensuring public trust and confidence in the commission, but is also within your lawful authority,” Bartlett and Johnson Smith said.