2 weeks ago
9
The Supreme Court has agreed with Prime Minister Andrew Holness that an argument can be made that the Integrity Commission’s decision to refer his 2021 statutory declarations to the Financial Investigation Division was illegal.
It was a key point on which the court granted Holness leave to challenge the commission’s explosive report into his financial affairs.
The high-stakes legal showdown pits the prime minister against the country’s preeminent anti-corruption body with less than a year before he’s due to face the electorate in a general election.
Ricardo Brooks has read the 53-page ruling and filed this report.
The matter was heard in chambers by Justice Althea Jarrett.
According to the justice, the primary question for resolution was whether Prime Minister Andrew Holness and his business interests should be granted leave to challenge the Integrity Commission’s Investigation Report and Special Report.
Both reports relate to whether Holness owns assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings. The reports also concern whether Holness made false statements, by way of omission, in his statutory declarations.
The reports are dated August 30, 2024, and September 5, 2024, respectively.
The prime minister was successful in court on two important grounds.
Justice Jarrett has granted him leave to bring a judicial review claim seeking to quash the August 30, 2024 report. She has also granted Holness permission to seek leave quashing the special report of the commission.
To quash a matter in law means to have a decision declared invalid and reversed.
According to Justice Jarrett, Kevon Stephenson’s decision to recommend a referral of the prime minister’s finances to the Financial Investigation Division, FID, has a practical adverse effect on Holness’ rights, as his 2021, 2022, and 2023 statutory declarations would not be finalised until the FID conducts and completes an investigation.
Stephenson is the director of investigation at the Integrity Commission. Jarrett also found that Stephenson had no express power in the Integrity Commission Act to make a referral to the FID.
She says the matter can be argued before the Judicial Review Court and has a realistic prospect of succeeding.
The justice says the commission’s acceptance of Stephenson’s recommendation, and strong recommendation to the Parliament to support it, also had the same adverse effect on Holness’ rights.
The justice excludes from the finding of adverse effect the recommendation that Parliament develop a policy and legislation to deal with corporate activities of government ministers.
She determined that it had no adverse effects on any rights and therefore should not be judicially reviewed.
But she said that by accepting the recommendations of Stephenson in its Special Report, the Integrity Commission was also accepting the FID referral recommendation.
The justice says if the original recommendation from Stephenson was beyond his statutory authority, then it appears to her that the commission’s acceptance of the recommendation would also be tainted by illegality.
Justice Jarrett says it can therefore be argued, with a realistic prospect of success, that by accepting Stephenson’s recommendation and encouraging the Parliament to do the same, the Integrity Commission acted beyond the scope of its lawful powers under the Integrity Commission Act.
The justice refused Holness’ requests for various declarations, as she found he did not require leave to seek those declarations.
She also refused Holness’ request for three orders compelling the Integrity Commission to exonerate him and to review his statutory declarations for 2021, 2022 and 2023.
The examination of the declarations was allegedly already undertaken and could not be certified as the 2021 was still outstanding.
The court refused the exoneration request on the basis that it would not usurp the decision-making authority of public bodies and officers.
Holness intends to pursue the 23 declarations that were refused in the first hearing scheduled for January 7, 2025.
English (US) ·