NIA questions Integrity Commission’s handling of PM’s conflict of interest report
The National Integrity Action (NIA) is raising questions about the Integrity Commission’s handling of the findings in relation to conflict of interest allegations against Prime Minister Andrew Holness.
Noting that an official statement by the Integrity Commission on Friday clarifies certain issues – including “the negative impact in this case of the ‘gag clause’ in prohibiting simultaneous release of the Director of Corruption Prosecutions’ (DCP) ruling and the Director of Investigation’s referral of ‘potential conflict of interest’ by the PM for prosecution” – the NIA said there are critical outstanding questions that its fellow corruption watchdog needs to address “as a matter of urgency”.
The NIA said two of these “outstanding” questions are specifically:
– Why is it that the Director of Investigation’s Report, dated October 22, 2022, referring matters relating to the PMs ‘potential conflict of interest’ to the DCP for a ruling was only ‘sent to Parliament and was tabled on February 14th ’; fully 17 weeks and 3 days after completion?
– Why is it that the commissioners took over four weeks ‘to read, understand and discuss’ and finalise its ‘review’ of the 14-page document containing the findings and ruling of the director of corruption prosecution that ‘no charges be brought in support of the allegations made’ including in relation to the prime minister?
The NIA went on to urge the Integrity Commission to hold a press briefing where these and other questions arising from their official statement can be answered.
“In the light of the likelihood that public confidence in the Integrity Commission has been shaken and the actual damage to the reputation of the PM, the Office of the Prime Minister and to Jamaica, NIA urges the IC to urgently convene a press briefing. This would allow officers of the IC to respond to these and other questions arising from its ‘Official Statement’,” the NIA said.
The Integrity Commission on Friday rejected allegations of misstep in its decision to table a report in Parliament which stated that the prime minister could face corruption charges, while being aware that its director of corruption prosecution had ruled that he should not be charged.
They pointed to the Integrity Commission Act which requires that where, in a report to the commission, the director of investigation is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there has been a breach of a code of conduct by a public officer or parliamentarian, or where there is suspicion that an act of corruption or an offence under the Act has been committed, the commission shall submit the report to Parliament for tabling.
