Ruling expected in Johnson Smith’s campaign donation matter next week
Published:Friday | October 27, 2023 | 12:11 AMAndre Williams/Staff Reporter
The Supreme Court is to rule next week Thursday whether to strike out a lawsuit filed by an attorney and retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Wilfred Rattigan brought against Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith and the Government.
The action surrounds the alleged non-disclosure of a US$99,000 donation to fund aspects of Johnson Smith's unsuccessful bid for the Commonwealth secretary general post in 2022.
American firm Finn Partners, to whom the sum was paid in three instalments, had reportedly been contracted by local private interests to provide public relations, media relations, and thought leadership services for Johnson Smith’s campaign.
The campaign was reportedly supported by donations from the Musson Group, GraceKennedy, businessman Keith Duncan, and other means.
Sought full disclosure
Rattigan sought to obtain full disclosure on the donors and the amount of money pumped into the campaign of Johnson Smith through the Access to Information Act but said that the Ministry of Finance indicated that it was not in possession of any documents detailing the source of the donations.
Rattigan contends that he obtained documents which detailed that, up to March 30, 2023, Johnson Smith did not declare the gift, which is in breach of the Financial Administration and Audit (FAA) Act.
On April 12, 2023, Rattigan, a Jamaican who resides in Maryland in the United States, filed the lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Jamaica, seeking to compel Johnson Smith, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, and the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service to disclose the gift.
Johnson Smith, in her only public response earlier this year, took to social media, saying, “I am aware of social media posts purporting to share a claim form in which I am named as a respondent. I am not aware of any such suit being filed or served. The allegations are in any event baseless, untrue and defamatory. I remind that defamation, even in social media can result in suits”.
However, in law, administrative orders or judicial reviews can be done with or without notice to the other parties.
Rattigan’s legal team opted to give notice and so the court provided an avenue for yesterday’s hearing, where both sides made submissions.
The media was not allowed at the hearing and the judge also reportedly guided the parties that a gag order was possible in the event that the matters discussed find their way into the public space, including on social media.
Johnson Smith is represented by Ransford Braham, KC, and Rattigan is represented by Sophia Bryan.
Bryan told The Gleaner that she is guided by the “strong warning” issued by the judge.
Rattigan, in the suit, charged that Johnson Smith and the foreign affairs ministry failed to comply with the statutory and administrative regulations under the FAA Act with respect to a US$99,000 donation/gift by “corporate Jamaica”.
He is charging that the finance ministry failed to take appropriate action to compel Johnson Smith and the foreign affairs ministry to comply with the applicable statutory and administrative regulations.
He further contends that Johnson Smith “failed to file a disclosure with the Integrity Commission regarding the donation she received that did not fall within the filing exceptions”.
Rattigan is charging that, as a beneficiary of a US$99,000 gift/donation, Johnson Smith “should have declared this sum to the Tax Administration Jamaica and paid appropriate taxes thereon”.
Rattigan is also seeking a declaration by the court that Johnson Smith and the Government failed to fulfil requirements of the FAA Act and that she was obligated to report the income to the Tax Administration of Jamaica.
He is also seeking to have the legal and administrative costs of $350,000 to bring the suit covered by Johnson Smith and the Government.
The judgment is expected on November 2.