Panton swats Bunting’s conflict of interest charge

Retired Justice Seymour Panton has shot down suggestions from former Minister of National Security Peter Bunting that he had a conflict of interest involving the Integrity Commission’s (IC) special report on the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) released back in March.

The report, which covered an IC investigation into questionable operations at the FLA, revealed that Bunting and another former national security minister, Robert Montague, granted firearm permits to persons with criminal traces.

Panton was the chairman of the FLA review board when Montague served as minister and is the current chair of the IC, which conducted and reported on the investigation between 2012 and 2018.

The report said Montague knowingly granted gun permits to six people with criminal traces when he served in the portfolio from 2016 to 2018, while Bunting, who was minister between 2012 and 2016, granted gun licences to two people of similar ilk.

Under Section 37A(2) of the Fireams Act, the review board hears, receives, and examines the evidence in the matter under review and submits to the minister, for his determination, a written report of its findings and recommendations.

“I am not aware that the review board that I chair had any involvement with any of the cases that were mentioned. That has not been shown to me,” Panton asserted in an emailed response to The Gleaner on Tuesday about the issue.

It followed questions raised by Bunting during last Wednesday’s sitting of the joint select committee reviewing the Integrity Commission Act, 2017, after IC Executive Director Greg Christie pressed for additional disclosure of assets belonging to parliamentarians.

Bunting noted that the highest responsibility to disclose “actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest” should apply to commissioners and senior managers at the IC.

“I can’t help but reflect on the omission in one of their recent reports where they mentioned no conflict of interest of one of the commissioners who had an active role in one of the organisations they were reviewing,” said Bunting.

Christie agreed that there should at all times be full disclosure from members of the IC but noted that he was not aware of the report to which Bunting was referring.

Bunting subsequently disclosed that he was speaking about the FLA report.

“In the specific appeal cases investigated in the report, why was no mention made of the recommendation of the review board to the minister? This would be material in determining the appropriateness of the exercise of ministerial authority, yet it was entirely excluded from the investigative report,” he argued, referring to possible recommendations made to Montague in the six cases.

However, Panton argued that Bunting, leader of opposition business in the Senate, was seeking to “muddy waters and deflect”.

The retired judge stressed that the review board is concerned with reviewing refusals and revocations of firearm licences. In instances where there is an application for review, the board considers all the relevant circumstances and makes a recommendation to the minister, who “may or may not accept” that suggestion, said Panton.

Furthermore, he said as regards the IC’s investigation of the FLA, he did not participate in the discussions.

He also said that there was nothing done by the review board that was being questioned.

“My appointment as chairman of the firearm review board was gazetted. It is not a secret. There was nothing for me to disclose. There was no conflict of interest.

“I think Senator Bunting would be better advised to concentrate on the recommendations made by the Integrity Commission and make a determination as to whether to accept them or not,” said Panton.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com