Dear Editor,
I have many questions for the Integrity Commission (IC) and especially Greg Christie.
I cannot swallow the IC commissioners’ explanation about the tabling of the reports. To begin with, why were two reports needed in the first place? Why wasn’t the decision not to prosecute subsumed into the main report? The report could have said that Prime Minister Andrew Holness was recommended to the director of corruption prosecution, but she, however, ruled that no charges should be brought against him.
All the players involved belong to one organisation, so why two separate reports? It’s not making sense to me.
If I were charged for a criminal offence and subsequently acquitted by the courts, would my police record comprise two separate reports, one for the charge and another for the acquittal? What the commission has said makes no sense to me.
Melanie Samuels
Portland
HOUSE RULES
- We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper; email addresses will not be published.
- Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.
- We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.
- Please do not write in block capitals since this makes your comment hard to read.
- Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed: advertising@jamaicaobserver.com.
- If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email: community@jamaicaobserver.com.
- Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
