ANOTHER Government legislator is headed to court to seek clarity on the Integrity Commission’s (IC) interpretation of the rules governing its operation.

Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness has already taken the IC to court for a judicial review and constitutional challenge over the IC’s handling of an investigation into his finances. Now, minister of state in the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service Zavia Mayne is headed to the Supreme Court for its interpretation of the sections of the IC legislation which is the subject of the disagreement between the commission and himself.

In a report tabled in Parliament on Tuesday the IC said charges should be laid against Mayne. But in a quick response the legislator’s lawyer argued that the charges were baseless and accused the anti-corruption body of embarking on a “fishing expedition”.

In the report, director of investigation (DI) at the IC Kevon Stephenson charged that Mayne, who is also the Member of Parliament for St Ann South Western, was lawfully requested to provide further information to the director of information and complaints (DoIC) in respect of the statutory declarations he submitted for the years 2018 to 2022 and failed to do so.

According to Stephenson, Mayne was aware of the requests to provide the requested information and his failure to do so, without reasonable cause, contravened Section 43(1)(b) of the Integrity Commission Act (ICA).

Stephenson said his investigation started based on a referral by the DoIC on April 12, 2024. He said the referral raised concerns that Mayne could be in breach of the ICA by virtue of his failure to provide information requested from him by the DoIC.

“The information requested by the DoIC was, in the main, pursuant to the assets, liabilities, and income declared by Mr Mayne in his statutory declarations for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. The DI is in possession of evidentiary material which indicates that Mr Mayne was, by way of letters and a notice, requested to provide information to the DoIC… By way of a letter dated October 13, 2023:

“Mr Mayne was informed that during its third-party verification process, the commission identified information with respect to assets that were not previously disclosed on his statutory declarations. A request was made of Mr Mayne to provide said information… This information was to be submitted by October 25, 2023,” said Stephenson in the report.

Among the information which Mayne was asked to provide were supporting document for the sale of a multimillion dollar property in Half-Way-Tree, St Andrew; details on banking accounts; and credit cards allegedly issued to him by third parties.

“Mr Mayne failed to provide the DoIC with the gross income earned from rental properties for the years 2021 and 2022 and evidence to support the source of income. A review of the statutory declaration revealed that Mr Mayne had included an income of $6 million from rental properties on his 2021 statutory declaration. He, however, did not include any income from rental properties in his 2022 statutory declaration,” added Stephenson.

He said by way of a letter… “Mr Mayne was required to provide information on financial accounts, assets, incomes earned from rental properties, salary/wages from Zavia Mayne and Company (law firm), cost to make improvement to properties that he had declared and the source of funds where applicable. Audited financial statements for five companies were also requested. The deadline for submitting this information, along with the necessary supporting documents, was November 24, 2023,” said Stephenson.

He noted that Mayne was later given a February 29, 2024 deadline to provide the information and warned that failure to do so would constitute an offence, “for which you are liable on summary conviction in a parish court to a fine not exceeding $500,000, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, in addition to being ordered by the court to comply with the requirement in respect of which the offence was committed”.

Stephenson said Mayne requested additional time of 30 days to provide the requested information as he argued that that the Local Government Elections were held on February 26, 2024, and that prevented him from meeting the stipulated deadline.

He said Mayne was granted an extension to March 20, 2024, to provide the requested information but failed to do so.

Stephenson reported that in a previous communication with the DoIC, Mayne had argued that the questions to him had all been answered in previous declarations along with their supporting documentation

“He requested from the commission, ‘the legal basis on which requisitions are made in relation to acquisitions made prior to the time when the duty to file.’

“Mr Mayne further stated that ‘the requisition in relation to limited liability companies is unclear since the law mandates the filing of a personnel [sic] financial declaration. The request for audited financial statements of limited liability companies, I believe, is outside of your jurisdiction and is improper. I will gladly reverse this position with proof of your legal authority to do so’,” said Stephenson.

In a release to the media Tuesday afternoon, attorney-at-law Nigel Jones, who represents Mayne, reiterated that position as he said the IC’s decision to recommend that his client be charged, following a disagreement on interpretation of a point of law, confirms that it the IC is an entity that has lost its way.

According to Jones, his client strongly and vehemently rejects any suggestion of non-compliance.

Jones said following a brief review of the report, after it was tabled in the House of Representatives, he concluded that the case against Mayne is “frivolous, vexatious, and without legal merit”.

He said Mayne has been diligent in filing his annual declarations with the commission.

“Mr Mayne and his legal team’s disagreement with the commission emanates from a requisition from the commission for his client to provide audited financial statements of third-party companies in which Mr Mayne is a shareholder,” said Jones.

He added that his client disagrees with the basis for the IC’s request and, “that the commission has no legal authority to make that demand as the law only requires his client to make a personal financial declaration of the assets and liabilities in his name”.

Jones charged that IC’s request for Mayne to make declarations about credit cards assigned to him through associated companies, or credit cards which were never activated or used is ridiculous, “especially in circumstances in which all financial institutions with which Mr Mayne have had dealings have submitted yearly letters to the commission detailing the extent of Mr Mayne’s business with them, to include savings, investments, and liabilities.”

The attorney argued that the decision to charge Mayne was an attempt by the commission to embarrass him because he disagrees with it on a point of legal interpretation and raises the serious question of motive, “considering that by way of letter dated April 16, 2024, Mr Mayne had invited the commission to seek a declaration from the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the relevant sections of the law on which they both had a disagreement”.

Jones said it is unfortunate that the IC has initiated a court process that will not resolve the outstanding issue, “and that the adversarial posture of the commission has left his client with no choice but to petition the Supreme Court for its interpretation of the sections of the legislation which is the subject of the disagreement”.