PM threatens court action over misleading statements on probe

Prime Minister Andrew Holness has asked his attorneys to file a defamation suit against persons who make public statements that suggest that he misled the country about being under probe for illicit enrichment by the Integrity Commission.

A two-page media release from the prime minister’s attorneys-at-law Henlin Gibson Henlin stated that Holness did not lie about his status when he told journalists that he was not aware of any Government member of parliament being under probe for illicit enrichment.

The lawyers maintain that Holness was not aware of any investigation into his statutory declarations until August 18, 2023, a day after he told journalists that no parliamentarian on the Government’s side was under probe.

He was informed by letter on the aforementioned date.

The lawyers said that prior to August 18, the subject of correspondence was ‘statutory declaration of assets, liabilities, and income’.

The lawyers said that none of these communications referenced Section 14(5) of the Corruption Prevention Act (CPA) or the words “illicit enrichment”.

That section states that where a public servant (a) owns assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings; and (b) upon being requested by the Commission or any person duly authorised to investigate an allegation of corruption against him, to explain how he came by such assets, he (i) fails to do so; or ii) gives an explanation which is not considered to be satisfactory, he shall be liable to prosecution for the offence of illicit enrichment, and on conviction thereof, to the penalties specified in Section 15 (1).

“The statements or suggestions in the public domain that the basis of the investigation came to the attention of our client since April 2023 are not accurate.

“Our instructions are to pursue legal action against persons who make statements in the public domain that are inconsistent with these facts,” the media release stated.

The attorneys said that by letter dated April 26, 2023, Holness was advised by the commission’s Director of Information and Complaints, Craig Beresford, that his 2021 statutory declaration had been referred for investigation pursuant to Sections 32 and 42 of the Integrity Commission Act.

ROLES, EXAMINATION, REFERRAL

Section 32 speaks to the functions of the director of information and complaints. Of note, Section 32(d) states that the director of information and complaints shall refer to the appropriate director any complaint or information, or notification received under paragraph c (complaints received) or any other matter that he considers appropriate for action.

Section 42 speaks broadly to the examination of statutory declaration and publication and publication of summary declaration in certain cases.

Further, Section 42(4) states that where the director of information and complaints is of the opinion that an investigation in relation to a statutory declaration is necessary for the purposes of the act, he shall refer the matter to the Commission for further and necessary action.

The lawyers said that having been notified that the 2021 declaration had been referred for investigation, Holness was further advised that the director of investigation, Kevon Stephenson, would be in touch with him.

On May 5, 2023, Stephenson confirmed that the matter had been referred to him for investigation.

Holness’ lawyers said he was informed then that Stephenson was in the process of conducting an assessment and preliminary inquiries and would be in touch with him in due course.

On May 26, 2023, Stephenson reportedly wrote to Holness, the lawyers said, to advise that new material had come to light, which had been referred to him for investigation.

They said that Stephenson again advised that he was conducting his assessment and inquiries with a view to inviting him for an interview.

“On the 20th June, 2023, we wrote to the chairman of the Integrity Commission on our client’s behalf, objecting to the manner in which the matter was referred and indicating that our client was not given an opportunity to respond to the new material,” the attorneys said, noting that the objection was copied to Stephenson.

“Just under a month later, via letter on July 11, 2023, the chairman of the Integrity Commission responded and disagreed with our position.”

A week later, on July 19, 2023, Holness was invited for an interview.

The lawyers said correspondence between that date and August 18, 2023, were concerned with fixing a date for the interview.

The lawyers said it was on August 18 that a notice under Section 48 of the Integrity Commission Act, Section 14(5) of the CPA, was dispatched to them.

Section 48 of the Integrity Commission Act speaks to the power to require attendance before the director of investigation.

“To be clear, based on our records, it is only on the 18th August, 2023, that it was communicated to us that the interview/investigation was being done under Section 14(5) of the Corruption Prevention Act,” they said.

“We took, and maintained, the objection stated above in our letter of the 20th June, 2023. This timeline and the documents confirm that at the time when our client addressed the matter on the 17th August, 2023, the Integrity Commission had not communicated to our client that he was being investigated for illicit enrichment,” the lawyers added.

The commission, in its 2022 annual report, said the Third Schedule is its primary data-collection tool, which aids with the determination of a declarant’s net worth to ensure that any growth in assets or reduction in liabilities is sufficiently supported by legitimate income.

The IC said the legitimacy of the assets, liabilities, and income declared by declarants must be validated by the commission’s research and third-party verification processes, in the first instance, to ensure that there is no concealment.

“ … Succinctly put, the commission must ensure that there is no illicit enrichment prior to certifying a statutory declaration,” it said.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com