Scott-Mottley queries connection of unnamed six to IC oversight body
Published:Tuesday | August 15, 2023 | 9:30 AMChristopher Thomas/Gleaner Writer
WESTERN BUREAU:
PEOPLE’S NATIONAL Party (PNP) Vice-President Donna Scott-Mottley is questioning whether the six as-yet-unnamed parliamentarians being investigated for illicit enrichment have any connection to the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee.
Addressing Sunday’s meeting of the PNP’s St James Southern constituency conference at the Anchovy High School in Anchovy, St James, Scott-Mottley argued that Prime Minister Andrew Holness has a responsibility to publicly name the six individuals.
“I want to ask the Government if the six people who are being investigated for illicit enrichment, if any of them sit on the joint select committee which is presently reviewing the Integrity Commission Act,” said Scott-Mottley.
“I want to ask the Government if any of them sit on the Oversight Committee of Parliament, on the Integrity Commission, [and] if the answer to any of those is yes, the prime minister has a duty to tell the country who they are.
“Tell the country who are the six persons who are being investigated for illicit enrichment in the Parliament, and it means they cannot explain how come they have so much money and so much property on what they are supposed to have,” Scott-Mottley added.
“There are 63 members of parliament and 21 senators, and six people should not impugn the integrity of all of us,” noted Scott-Mottley, who is also a senator.
The latest commission’s annual report, tabled in Parliament on July 11, indicated that illicit enrichment probes were opened against six lawmakers and 28 other public officials.
It is not clear whether those public officials have disclosed their status or if any have been relieved of duty.
The IC’s gag clause prevents it from naming subjects or commenting on investigations until a report is tabled in Parliament.
Scott-Mottley also took a swipe at the Government’s move to change the age of retirement for the director of public prosecutions (DPP) and the auditor general from 60 to 65, demanding to know why the process to approve the incumbent DPP Paula Llewellyn’s continuation in the post was carried out without the Opposition’s input.
“In the case of this DPP (Llewellyn), she applied for an extension of five years, and the agreement, which had to be arrived at before she became 60 under the Constitution, was that she would get an extension of three years,” said Scott-Mottley, referring to Llewellyn’s application for extension of her tenure in 2020.
“She would have to step down in September [of this year], as that is when her time would come to an end. So let me ask you this, why would they rush through this amendment on July 25 if it is not that they wanted this DPP to continue in office? The Government must answer why it is that they wanted this DPP to remain in office, that they had to rush it,” Scott-Mottley added.
The Government and the Opposition have been at loggerheads over the legislation extending Llewellyn’s time in the DPP’s office, with the Opposition being accused of exercising a personal vendetta in filing a lawsuit over the issue in the Supreme Court.