KINGSTON, Jamaica — Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness was circumspect on Monday when he responded to a question about the state of the investigation by the Financial Investigations Division (FID) into his unverified statutory declarations.

The matter was referred to the FID by the Integrity Commission (IC) which failed to reach a conclusion after probing the financial affairs of the prime minister during a lengthy investigation that was made public nearly two years ago.

In September 2024, the IC recommended that both the FID and Tax Administration Jamaica examine aspects of the financial affairs of the prime minister. The referrals were contained in a 79-page investigation report of the IC which was tabled in the Parliament.

READ: Integrity Commission wants FID, TAJ to probe aspects of PM’s financial affairs

The matter was raised Monday morning when veteran journalist Cliff Hughes interviewed Holnes during Cliff Hughes Online on Nationwide Radio.

Regarding the IC, Hughes told the prime minister, “You yourself is in their crosshairs – the matter of your uncertified declarations.”

“They brought in a forensic examiner and they found nothing on which they could proceed against you and they referred it to the FID,” Hughes continued.

Hughes told the prime minister it was his understanding that “the FID said there’s nothing against you on which it can proceed”. According to Hughes, “the FID wrote to the IC saying there’s nothing there”. He said the IC had a terse one-sentence response stating that “the matter is still under investigation”.

When he responded, the prime minister said he had no knowledge of such developments even after he was told that his lawyers had written to the IC, asking that the FID’s position be made public.

He insisted that, “I am not aware of the FID’s position, that’s the point I’m making”, while adding that “I’m surprised that you’re aware of the FID’s position”.

However, the prime minister did state that his lawyers wanted to know what the position of the FID was, “That’s why they wrote to ask,” he said.

Holness also acknowledged that he was in an “invidious position because I don’t want to say or do anything that would prejudice my own case or prejudice the Integrity Commission”.

“I’m very careful in answering questions, particularly these matters that are before the court,” he added.

Having earlier been asked whether he had confidence in the IC and whether he felt the anti-corruption body was biased against him and his Jamaica Labour Party Government, Holness said, “I repeat my point that the Integrity Commission is important, it’s a necessary agency of the government but in its current form it is in need of review and it needs certain changes to make it more effective.”