Questions for the Integrity Commission
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
