RADIO SILENCE

Speaker of the House of Representatives Marisa Dalrymple Philibert yesterday shut down responses to a string of questions posed by the parliamentary Opposition surrounding the Airports Authority of Jamaica's (AAJ) nearly half a billion-dollar investment in start-up company, FirstRock Capital Holdings, in breach of Government regulations.

Robert Montague, the transport and mining minister who was facing a litany of questions in Parliament on the issue, divulged that the country's single anti-corruption body was conducting a probe into the matter.

This raised eyebrows as lawmakers in 2017 passed a controversial clause in the Integrity Commission Act that gagged the corruption watchdog from announcing an investigation into alleged acts of corruption.

It is not known how Montague obtained the information, but head of the National Integrity Action, Professor Trevor Munroe, said it was unacceptable that any government minister should be aware of investigations being carried out by the Integrity Commission while the Jamaican people were kept in the dark.

“It is in breach of any principle of the sovereignty of the people that a minister should be privileged in respect of information that is undoubtedly a matter of public interest,” Munroe told The Gleaner last evening.

Munroe said that this re-emphasises the necessity to have Section 53 (3), dubbed the gag clause, amended so that the public could be informed that an investigation was under way.

Montague told members of the Lower House that “the subject matter of the question is being reviewed by the Integrity Commission, which is a commission of Parliament”.

In a terse response, the government minister continued: “I, therefore, crave the indulgence of the Honourable House in allowing for that process to be completed and the outcome presented to the Parliament.”

Regarding the 21 questions posed by Manchester North Western Member of Parliament Mikael Phillips, the Speaker made a controversial ruling that the parliamentary Opposition should await the findings of the Integrity Commission before they could get responses from Montague.

Her decision came amid a strong warning from Opposition Leader Mark Golding that Government lawmakers were going down a “dangerous path” by setting up roadblocks that could not be supported by the Standing Orders, to prevent lawmakers from getting answers to questions on issues of national importance.

Golding said that the Integrity Commission would be conducting its investigation and drawing conclusions on whether acts of corruption or malfeasance were committed.

He argued that the Opposition's queries were questions of fact and should be answered based on the Standing Orders.

“Let the counsel of Parliament opine on this matter,” Golding said of the legislative counsel, whose job includes guiding parliamentarians on the rules governing parliamentary procedure.

Since the scandal broke in relation to the AAJ's $443-million investment in FirstRock Capital Holdings, Prime Minister Andrew Holness raised issues of “grave concern” about governance in relation to the issue.

“I don't like to speak when I'm not fully briefed. I have some information … . However, let me say the Government is always very concerned when matters of governance of public bodies are raised,” Holness said in late July during a press conference on interim COVID-19 restrictions, which he said limited his participation in a Cabinet briefing on the matter.

In July, Finance and the Public Service Minister Dr Nigel Clarke responded to questions on the AAJ's investment into FirstRock Holdings. It is not known at the time if the Integrity Commission had started its probe.

However, Clarke told lawmakers that the February 2019 investment breached the regulations of the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act which mandated his ministry's approval before public entities invest in companies not listed on the stock exchange. They also breached their own policy by investing in a start-up rather than a “blue chip” company.

Phillips, the Opposition spokesman on transport, said he was not happy with the ruling of Dalrymple Philibert in relation to his questions.

“We feel strongly that matters that are dealt with by the Integrity Commission do not stop the minister from answering questions that have been tabled,” he said.

“We are not happy on this side and I am sure that those who would want to hear from the minister would not be happy,” he added.

Cementing her stance, Dalrymple Philibert said: “Out of deference and respect to the Integrity Commission and the work they are doing and the Standing Orders as it stands, I believe we ought to wait until their enquiry (sic). We would not like to have any discussion in this Parliament that would in any way colour, taint, go ahead of, stand beside or go behind the findings of the Integrity Commission.”

She drew reference to the prosecutorial function given to the Integrity Commission to deal with acts of corruption.

But Munroe contended that questions legitimately asked in Parliament under the Standing Orders ought to be answered in keeping with the rules of the House of Representatives. He said the only exception to the rule was in the event the matter was before the court or sub judice.

While conceding that the commission has a director of corruption prosecution with powers to prosecute, Golding said there was no evidence to support the view that this issue would be taken before the courts.

He made it clear that it was the investigative arm of the commission that was now conducting a probe.

Golding charged that an investigation being conducted by the anti-corruption body should not “circumscribe or limit the powers of a parliamentarian to invoke the question procedures provided in the Standing Orders”.

Acting leader of government business and Justice Minister, Delroy Chuck, said the responses being sought to questions posed to Montague were queries that would be before the Integrity Commission.

“These questions as to the purchase of shares, why they were purchased, have they been sold, are simple questions which we expect the Integrity Commission to send us a report within a matter of weeks,” he said.

“Madam Speaker, you could ask the Integrity Commission to report on this matter as soon as possible.”

The Speaker first agreed to write to the Integrity Commission, asking it to produce a report speedily, but later reversed her position accepting a caution from Golding that such an approach would be inappropriate.

Section 6 (3) of the Integrity Commission Act states that “in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this act, the commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority other than the court by way of judicial review”.

Erskine May Parliamentary Practice states in paragraph 22.21 that notice of a question on matters sub judice cannot be tabled unless the Speaker agrees to waive them.

The questions being asked by Phillips were not the subject of a court hearing and as such would not be bound by this provision.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com