Home » IC responds to those who have criticized the manner it handled the PM investigation.

IC responds to those who have criticized the manner it handled the PM investigation.

IC responds to those who have criticized the manner it handled the PM investigation.

Thank you for reading this post. Don't forget to subscribe!

IC responds to those who have criticized

Law is to blame!
The Integrity Commission (IC) has adopted this stance in response to the harsh criticism it has faced about the manner in which it made public a report on a corruption probe involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness.
The IC is being criticized in particular for its choice to separate the results of the aforementioned investigation by its Director of Investigation, Kevon Stephenson, and a subsequent decision by its Director of Corruption Prosecution, Keisha Prince-Kameka, which stated that no charges should be brought against Holness.
It is noteworthy that the Commission released a 107-page report on February 14 with its shocking conclusions and recommendations, such as the suggestion that the prime minister should be forwarded to the Director of Corruption Prosecution for possible criminal punishment because it is likely that he had a hand in the awarding of nearly $22 million in government contracts to Westcon Construction Limited.

According to the investigation report, Holness was forwarded to the Director of Corruption Prosecution for review for potential violations of the Contractor General Act, the Public Sector Procurement Rules 2008, the Corruption (Prevention Act), and/or any other relevant laws.


By the time this was made public on February 14, the Director of Corruption Prosecution had decided that the prime minister would not face any charges.

On February 16, the IC made the material public, and ever since, it has faced harsh criticism. The Jamaica Labour Party, which is in power, has been among its fiercest opponents. Justice Minister Delroy Chuck has demanded that people be held accountable, while the prominent Private Sector Organization of Jamaica has demanded an explanation of the IC’s decision-making process.

In response, the IC has urged that the nation’s politicians should be held accountable.


The IC claimed in its statement that it had noted the overwhelming criticism.

Yet it also said that “The Director of Corruption Prosecution’s judgment in a case where a report has been forwarded to Parliament cannot be revealed to anybody prior to the report being tabled.”

The Integrity Commission Act’s Section 53(3), states that “until a report is tabled in Parliament, all matters under investigation by the Director of Investigation or any other person involved in the such investigation shall be kept confidential, and no report or public statement shall be made by the Commission or any other person in relation to the initiation or conduct of (the) investigation,” was cited as the reason for this.


The IC went on to say that “no provision in the Act mandates the tabling of a judgment by the Director of Corruption Prosecution” (emphasis added).

Despite this, the Commission has adopted the stance that a judgment of this nature should be informed to Parliament and the public in the interest of complete and prompt disclosure.

“It is important to reiterate and emphasize that the ruling’s publication could not occur before or at the same time as the report. It had to wait till the report was filed. That is the law that was created by Parliament and was previously said, “the IC included.


The Integrity Commission’s complete statement may be seen below:

The Director of Corruption Prosecution’s report and the Integrity Commission’s decision in the case of Westcon Construction Ltd has drawn criticism from a number of people and organizations, which the Integrity Commission has taken note of.

The Commission uses this chance to share the following information with the public:


According to the Integrity Commission Act, the Commission must submit its report to Parliament for consideration when the Director of Investigation determines that there are plausible reasons to believe that a public official or member of parliament has violated a code of conduct, or when there is reason to believe that a corrupt act or an offense against the Act has been committed.

The Act does not contain any language requiring the Director of Corruption Prosecution to provide a ruling.


Even though there is no provision for a ruling to be tabbed, the Commission has taken the stance that in the interest of complete and prompt disclosure, a ruling should be conveyed to Parliament and announced to the public.


In cases when a report has been delivered to Parliament, the Director of Corruption Prosecution’s decision cannot be shared with anybody prior to the report’s being laid on the table. Due to Section 53(3) of the Integrity Commission Act, which states that “no report or public statement shall be made by the Commission or any other person in relation to the initiation or conduct of (the) investigation,” all matters under investigation by the Director of Investigation or any other person involved in such an investigation must be kept confidential until the report is submitted to Parliament.


In this instance, the report was transmitted to the Director of Corruption Prosecution as required by law, and she sent the Commission a copy of her ruling, which was dated January 12, 2023. The Commissioners took the time to read, comprehend, and discuss it since they hadn’t had a chance to before.


On February 14, 2023, the report was submitted to Parliament and laid on the table. On February 15, 2023, the Commission received confirmation of the filing. When the Commission’s examination of the ruling was completed, a publishing order was granted on the aforementioned 15 February 2023, and the publication took place the next day, on February 16. It is important to reiterate and emphasize that publishing the ruling could not be done in advance of or concurrently with the report. It had to wait till the report was filed. That is the law that was created by Parliament that was previously mentioned.


The Integrity Commission wants to emphasize how independent each Director is of the others under the Integrity Commission Act. Complaints are sent to the director of information and complaints. He forwards these complaints to the relevant Director, often the Director of Investigation, who, if he deems it essential, launches an inquiry. He turns in his report to the Commission for parliamentary presentation following such an inquiry. In cases where the Director of Investigation believes that the Director of Corruption Prosecution should be consulted to determine whether or not criminal charges should be brought, the report is sent to the Director of Corruption Prosecution before being presented to Parliament for consideration.


The Director of Corruption Prosecution, who [section 34(3)] is not subject to the direction or control of any person or body in relation to the conduct of prosecutions, then determines whether or not prosecution should be instituted based on the evidence presented in the Director of Investigation’s report. The Commissioners are then informed of that decision.


The Integrity Commission wants the general public to know that it takes its responsibility seriously. Any claim that there has been an error in the process is rejected. Every effort is made to adhere completely to the legal requirements in all situations that fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Director of Corruption Prosecution’s decision in a case does not alter the information in the Director of Investigation’s report. They run their businesses independently.


The Integrity Commission Act assigns separate and distinct functions to the directors of investigation and corruption prosecution. One investigates, compiles a report, and makes recommendations; the other decides what is suggested. After reading the Director of Investigation’s report, the Commissioners decided there was no need to distance themselves from it.


Based on the information he had seen, the director of the investigation was suggesting that offenses may have been committed. He forwarded it to the Director of Corruption Prosecution as required by law so that she might determine whether any offenses had actually been committed. The Director of Corruption Prosecution had the authority to rule on the subject, and she did so. Despite that ruling, the report had to be forwarded to Parliament and presented there before anything could be said about it.


The legislation has been strictly complied with. Such remarks against the Commission or its Director of Inquiry are uncalled for and misguided.

Last but not least, the Commission’s Executive Director (Greg Christie) has no influence over the information contained in an inquiry report or a decision.


Table of Contents

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Talk Up Di Tings Dem

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Open chat
1
Scan the code
TalkItUp WhatsApp
Hello
Do you need more information about this post ?
TalkUpDiTingsDem News Opt-In Consent Form

Thank you for choosing to stay connected with TalkItUp News Chat. By providing your consent, you agree to receive communication from us. Please take a moment to read the following information carefully before providing your consent.