December 6 for ruling re PM’s judicial review request about IC report

Prime Minister Andrew Holness is to learn on December 6 whether the Supreme Court will accede to his request for a judicial review of the Integrity Commission's (IC) report on his statutory declarations and other financial matters.

In a high-stakes legal battle, Holness is seeking to have the IC's investigation report on his ‘statutories’ declared "unlawful" and "unfair".

High Court Judge Justice Althea Jarrett reserved her decision after hearing submissions from attorneys representing Holness, as well as of the IC and two of its directors, in chambers on Thursday and Friday.

The application for judicial review was filed on September 30 by Holness, his company Imperium Investments Holding Limited, and affiliated companies Positive Media Solutions Limited and Positive Jamaica Foundation Limited, a quasi-charity.

They are represented by attorney Georgia Gibson-Henlin of the law firm Henlin Gibson Henlin.

The IC’s Director of Information and Complaints, Craig Beresford, is the first respondent, with its Director of Investigations, Kevon Stephenson, being the second respondent. The IC is the third respondent. The firm Hylton Powell represents all three respondents, with King's Counsel Michael Hylton leading the case for the respondents.

If granted by the court, the judicial review that Holness is seeking will examine the processes that were used by the IC to arrive at its conclusions.

The prime minister's application seeks several administrative orders.

He has taken issue with major parts of a damning 171-page investigation report from the IC, which was tabled in Parliament on September 17.

In addition to having the IC's findings overturned, Holness is seeking monetary compensation.

The IC’s findings in relation to its illicit enrichment probe of the country’s head of Government were inconclusive, and referrals were made to the Financial Investigations Division (FID) and Tax Administration Jamaica (TAJ), with the IC indicating that it remains unable to certify the prime minister’s statutory declarations for 2021 and 2022.

The IC said it had difficulty sorting through the business dealings of several companies that are/were affiliated with the prime minister, including several that filed nil tax returns with the TAJ, despite recording millions of dollars of transactions.

Notably, Holness wants the Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional, a law that was used by the IC to probe public officials for illicit enrichment.

If he is successful, the result would have implications for at least seven other parliamentarians who are similarly under probe for illicit gains.

Holness, through his attorneys, has asked the court to dismiss provisions of the 2017 Integrity Commission Act, given what he argues is their “lack of fairness, impartiality and independence in the exercise of the functions of the divisions and the commission as presently structured.”

He got personal with the IC and its directors, stating that “I believe that the tabling of the report was intended to embarrass and cause harm to me and, as such, was made for an improper purpose and in bad faith to prejudice and harm me.”

Holness also claims that the report sought to impute “criminal and unethical conduct to me and the other applicants”.

The prime minister has asked the court to discard the report as “unlawful”, “unfair” and premised on an “unconstitutional” provision in the Corruption Prevention Act.

His lawyers argue that the report was done in bad faith to prejudice and harm him, and suggest that he did not know he was being investigated for illicit enrichment.

They also argue that he was not given the background in relation to the alleged irregularities that were being investigated, and was not told the proportion or sum by which his assets were disproportionate to his income.

Additionally, the lawyers also pointed to a report the IC received from an international forensics expert following a months-long probe, arguing that he (Holness) was entitled to see and respond to any adverse findings, and benefit from any advantageous findings in that report.