Prime Minister Andrew Holness is strongly opposing some of the Integrity Commission’s (IC) findings and recommendations. This follows an eye-opening 179-page report that has raised multiple questions about his financial dealings.
The report was made public yesterday following its tabling in the House of Representatives.
The report cleared Holness of making false declarations regarding four bank accounts but raised numerous questions about his financial undertakings. The IC also said it was unable to determine whether the prime minister had enriched himself illicitly and has recommended that the Financial Investigation Division and Tax Administration Jamaica examine the conduct of multiple companies with which he is associated.
“I will take further legal advice on this report and determine the way forward and I will continue to pray to God for guidance and strength as I continue to lead Jamaica,” the sombre-looking prime minister said yesterday in a prepared statement in the House of Representatives.
There was no debate following the statement and the sitting of the House was adjourned immediately after, with Deputy Speaker Heroy Clarke refusing to accommodate questions from Opposition leader Mark Golding who had risen to his feet as Members of Parliament on the government side started to walk out of the chamber.
Golding, who spoke to reporters afterwards, charged that Holness misled the country, claiming that the prime minister knew all along that he was one of the so-called “illicit 6” being probed by the IC. Golding also took note of the fact that the commission has still not signed off on the prime minister’s statutory declarations for 2021.
Noting that the investigation was started in relation to his 2021 statutory filings with the IC, Holness said he welcomed that fact that the report was “finally tabled two years since this process began”.
“Based on what is said in the summary, queries were triggered because I had omitted bank accounts from my declarations and one of these accounts was incorrectly reported as a US dollar balance by the financial institution. These matters were cleared as the accounts in question by my recollection, were dormant, previously reported and the balances in them were JMD 3,000.00 and Euro200,” he said.
He explained that some of the accounts were opened by his parents as far back as 1975 and his name added later, “probably while I was still a child”.
“Many Jamaicans add persons to their accounts for survivorship and in the event of an rgency. I have never claimed these as my assets. I am satisfied that the Director of Corruption Prosecution ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support claims that I intentionally omitted bank accounts from my declaration and that there is greater evidence to support my explanation as opposed to evidence to the contrary,” highlighted.
“I also note that no other matter in the report was referred to the authorised authority, the Director of Corruption Prosecution,” Holness added.
He appeared to take issue with the summary of the report which outlined his personal financial affairs from 2018 to 2023, including associated private third-party businesses and transactions.
“Over 3,600 transactions examined, 28 bank accounts, over 80 witness statements collected. This effort to pursue me and my affairs led to the hiring of an international forensic accounting examiner for six months. As far as I am aware, only my 2021 declaration was submitted for investigation,” he remarked.
“After this most thorough interrogation of my personal affairs, which is not in any way connected to public funds, or a benefit resulting from my office, they were ‘unable to come to a conclusion regarding illicit enrichment,” he said.
Noting that the IC concluded that in 2022 there was unexplained growth of J$1.9 million in his net worth, Holness said “I reject this finding based on materiality and significance. While I have not had a chance to fully review their specific calculations, just on a cursory review, I have seen an error in figures they have used in their calculations”.
Holness also rejected a finding that he acquired an asset for which the source of fund was not adequately explained, referring to a US$94,000 bond he acquired in 2019. He pointed out that errors were made by the financial institution involved, information that has since been provided to the IC which has indicated that it does not affect its findings.“I also reject a claim in the report that I have hindered the examinations of my declarations by not supplying information requested. “Let it be known that I have complied with any obligation placed on me within the law. The company with which I am directly associated is compliant and up to date with its tax filings,” he insisted.
The prime minister said he has “worked hard, wisely and honestly” to achieve whatever he possesses. “I have never depended on the public purse,” he declared, reminding that he had turned down a salary increase that would have seen his salary balloon to $28 million, “in solidarity with all Jamaicans whose income levels are challenging”.
He told the House that “I have the privilege and awesome responsibility of leading this country and I take it seriously. Regardless of the attempts to distract me and unnecessarily consume my time, I have never lost focus on ensuring a stable, resilient and growing economy, reducing unemployment, improving our security as a nation, building out our infrastructure and providing support for the most vulnerable in our society”.
“Furthermore, I have always sought to discharge my duties, with respect and dignity. Even for those who try to bring me down and do personal harm to my reputation,” he continued.
Turning his focus to the commission, Holness noted that the weaponisation of accusations is nothing new in politics.
“However, even the most sceptical onlooker must conclude that the handling of this matter, the time it has taken, and the public resources used to pursue it raise cause for concern on many levels”.
The prime minister said: “while I will not pursue the view that this was politicised, I believe it is commonly agreed that the law governing the IC is in urgent need of revision. The current context of its operation does weaken its credibility, and we must do everything to ensure that the appropriate laws are in place to prevent the politicisation of the commission. We must also ensure that the commission itself is efficient and pays due regard to use of public funds and the time and resources required of public officials to comply. To this end the law, must ensure that the work of the commission focuses on relevant, significant and material issues”.
