KINGSTON, Jamaica —The Integrity Commission (IC) is highlighting the written reasons offered by the Supreme Court last week, in the matter concerning the co-operation of other bodies with the IC, under Section 7 of the Integrity Commission Act.

This confirms the Court’s orders made on January 17, 2024.

Justice Chester Stamp declared, among other things, that “…the Act must be interpreted to impose a duty upon persons and entities to co-operate with the Commission by complying with the requests for information…”

The IC, in a press release, noted that the Court also held that “Financial institutions are mandated to furnish upon request the information required by the Commission to verify the statutory declarations.”

Justice Stamp pointed out that, “Section 7(2) of the Act is designed, clearly, to enhance the capacity of the Commission to detect and expose corruption on the part of parliamentarians and public officials by assessing whether such individuals are in possession or control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their official emoluments and legitimate income.”

The court case was initiated in November 2021 after Barita Investments Ltd refused to comply with an IC request for information relating to 151 public officials.

Stamp stated that, ““It was also contended that the disclosure of the requested information may infringe upon Barita’s clients’ constitutional right to privacy. Reliance was placed on [Robinson, Julian v The Attorney General of Jamaica]. In that case, the Court recognised the right to privacy enshrined in the Charter to be an inherent right encompassing three dimensions: personal privacy, informational privacy, and privacy of choice”.

Stamp said that while the Court acknowledges that financial information is afforded the protection under the right to privacy, “the circumstances of the instant case are distinguishable. [Robinson, Julian v The Attorney General of Jamaica] primarily addresses the initial collection of data whereas here, the requested information is being sought to verify the accuracy of information that has already been disclosed. Public officers, in fulfilling their obligation to submit statutory declarations with information about their assets, in effect consent to the verification of the provided data”.

“This consent is implied by the very nature of the statutory declaration process where accuracy, transparency and verification are essential. Consequently, such information falls outside the scope of the privacy protections the Charter aims to safeguard,” Stamp added.

The IC said it acknowledges that these reasons have come at a critical time when Section 7 of the IC Act, is being reviewed by a Joint Select Committee of Parliament.