Chuck demands Integrity Commission update on 'Illicit 6'

A senior Cabinet minister yesterday sent a message to the Integrity Commission (IC) urging the anti-corruption body to deliver a report on the six parliamentarians who were said to be under investigation for illicit enrichment.

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck told his fellow lawmakers who sit on the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee on Thursday, that it was about time that the IC divulged to Parliament whether or not “one or all six have been cleared up”.

It is not the first time that Chuck has made public statements pressing the IC to deliver its investigative report to Parliament on the MP's being probed by the anti-corruption body.

On December 12, 2023, Chuck told the oversight committee: "We need to hear from the Integrity Commission whether the matters involving the six parliamentarians and the 28 public officials being investigated for illicit enrichment have been cleared up."

The IC, in June 2023, stated in its annual report that it is investigating six parliamentarians and 28 public officials for illicit enrichment.

Section 14 (5) (a) and (b) of the Corruption Prevention Act states that illicit enrichment happens where a public servant owns assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings.

“When Mr Craig Beresford was here he said that the basis of the illicit enrichment was a mismatch between purchases and income or expenditure and income, " Chuck said.

Beresford is the director of information and complaints at the IC.

“To my mind those members, whoever they are, if they can’t clear it up then we need some indication from the Integrity Commission what is being done,” he said.

The veteran lawmaker signalled that tongues continue to wag about the parliamentarians who are under the IC’s spotlight for alleged illicit enrichment.

Section 56 and Section 53 of the Integrity Commission Act, often referred to as the gag clauses, prohibit the anti-corruption body from commenting on any investigation it is pursuing.

"Everybody ask me on the street, are you one of the six? It is not fair chairman, they need to clear this thing up,” Chuck appealed to the IC.

At yesterday’s meeting of the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee, a report from the IC which accused former Westmoreland Central Member of Parliament Dwayne Vaz of breaching the Integrity Commission Act was highlighted by some members even though the committee made the decision to defer discussion on the issue to allow representatives from the anti-corruption body to field questions at the next meeting.

Vaz pleaded guilty in court on Tuesday for failing to provide information on his statutory declaration requested by the Integrity Commission’s director of information and complaints.

The charge as read by the court stated that the former MP failed without reasonable cause to provide the information related to his statutory declaration by way of notice dated November 3, 2020 and subsequent extension date of November 17, 2020.

Member of Parliament for St Catherine South West Everald Warmington said he wants the IC to explain the relevance of Section 42(3)(a) of the Integrity Commission Act. “If you issue a certification for a particular year how can you then be asking for other documents? The Government MP said he wants to know whether this Section of the law is being abused.

Addressing a similar concern, Julian Robinson, MP for St Andrew South East, said he wants confirmation from the IC whether a letter dated May 18, 2021, addressed to Mr (Dwayne Vaz) under the signature of Craig Beresford, director of information and complaints, states that under Section 42(3)(a) of the law, the Integrity Commission “hereby certifies that your statutory declaration as of December 31, 2019 has been examined”.

The letter, according to Robinson, further states: “Based on the examination which does not constitute an audit it appears that the statutory declaration has been duly completed in accordance with the provisions of the Integrity Commission Act”.

Robinson wants the IC to explain the basis on which Vaz was found to be in contravention of any provision of the Integrity Commission Act.

Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte, who sits on the committee, said from reports in the public domain there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding of the types of offences that can be brought against declarants where there is a failure to provide requested information within a stipulated time frame.

She said the law allows for a declarant to discharge liability in certain circumstances where there is non compliance with the law or with the request for information by the relevant director.

“If you discharge the liability it avoids a prosecution but it does not absolve you of the need to provide the requested information,” she explained.

“If you provide the information but the liability from the previous non-compliance remains then it is open to the commission to make a charge in the circumstances,” she added.

editorial@gleanerjm.com