Trevor Munroe | Is our prime minister upholding ministerial ethical standards?

A little over four years before the September 17 publication of the Integrity Commission’s Investigation Report relating to “concerns that he [PM Holness] owns assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings”, our prime minister told us: “As Head of the Government of Jamaica, I am committed to ensuring the highest standards of accountability, probity, transparency and integrity in the administration of public affairs. Acting in this regard, I met with Minister Hutchinson and had frank and meaningful discussions on matters of current concern… effective immediately, Minister J.C. Hutchinson will be relieved of responsibilities in the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, Agriculture and Fisheries”. (Jamaica Gleaner, July 17, 2020) Minister Hutchinson was not the only minister required to step aside, “ensuring the highest standards of accountability”. Two years before Hutchinson was relieved of ministerial responsibilities, on July 30, 2018, following consultations with the prime minister, and in the face of public pressure arising from the Petrojam and Nesol scandals, Minister of Science, Energy and Technology, Andrew Wheatley, announced “With immediate effect, I will step back from my duties as minister and Cabinet member”. ( Loop News, July 30, 2018)

Eight months after Wheatley, on March 20, 2019, our Prime Minister Holness again applied the ‘step aside’ consequence from the ministerial code: “This morning, I met with Minister Ruel Reid regarding certain allegations in the public domain. In keeping with the principles of good governance, I requested and received Minister Reid’s resignation”. ( Loop News, March 20, 2019) On March 11, 2022, our Prime Minister Holness once again applied the step aside moral code to another minister. “Following a damning FLA (Firearms Licensing Authority) report, Prime Minister Holness met with Hon Robert Montague who tendered his resignation.” ( The Gleaner, March 11, 2022) On the 29th of February 2024, “Min Everald Warmington resigned from the Cabinet after vowing to limit public funds and resources made available to the PNP councillor-elect in the Old Harbour South Division. Warmington would later point out that he did not resign but was fired by the prime minister. He stated “I was fired. The prime minister said to me… that because of civil society, he can’t keep me there”. (Radio Jamaica News Online, Tuesday, March 5)

In relieving J.C. Hutchinson of his ministerial responsibilities, Prime Minister Holness – in a statement – indicated that he assessed Hutchinson’s role in helping his partner get approval to manage 2400 acres of state-owned lands as being “against the ethical standards and Code of Conduct of Ministers outlined in Ministry Paper No. 19”.

We should know that this Code of Conduct for Ministers was approved 22 years ago in 2002 during the P.J. Patterson administration. This code, to which Prime Minister Holness referred, has underpinned the stepping aside, resignation or dismissal of ministers across administrations; for example, Minister Collin Campbell, 2006, under Prime Minister Simpson Miller; Minister Hibbert 2009, under Prime Minister Golding; as well as Minister Azan, 2013 and Minister Ferguson, 2015, both under Prime Minister Simpson Miller. This Code of Conduct sets out the standards “to which all Ministers of Government are expected to adhere”. This obviously must include prime ministers.

CURRENT CONTROVERSY

In the current controversy, arising from the September 17 tabling of the Integrity Commission’s Investigation Report into, inter alia, concerns “that he [the Most Honourable Mr Andrew Holness, prime minister] owns assets disproportionate to his earnings”. I wish to refer to one of the seven standards in the Code of Conduct for Ministers: “Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible … about actions that they take. They should restrict information only when the wider public interest so demands … Ministers should be as open as possible with the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. We the public and our prime minister need to ask, “In respect of disclosure, did our Head of Government behave in compliance with the principle of openness, and with the standards in the Ministerial Code of Conduct, to which all Members of Government are expected to adhere?”

Should we the public have had to wait, speculate, and wonder who were the members of parliament being investigated for illicit enrichment as mentioned in the annual reports of the Integrity Commission 2022/23 and 2023/24? We learnt that our prime minister was one such, only on September 17, when the Integrity Commission’s Investigation Report was tabled in Parliament. Yet, the report itself suggests that the prime minister was aware that he was being investigated for illicit enrichment possibly sixteen months prior, from May 2023 – but certainly by the latest, August 2023.

Take a look at the information in the Integrity Commission Report itself. Table 1: Chronology of Investigative Actions (pages 13-24). “May 5, 2023 – Letter sent to Mr Holness by the DI [Director of Investigation] advising him of the referral received for investigation.” This referral derives from the May 3, 2023 “referral received from the Commissioners pursuant to S14(5) of the CPA” [Corruption Prevention Act]. (Page 14)

LIABLE TO PROSECUTION

Section 14(5) states that “Where a public servant (a) – owns assets disproportionate to his earnings and (b) – upon being requested by the Commission to investigate an allegation against him to provide an explanation as to how he came by such assets, if 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…”

Later, on August 18, 2023 (page 17), there was another “letter dispatched to Mr Holness’ attorney conveying Section 14(5) CPA/Judges Rules Notice/Questions to be explored in the interview.” Mr Holness was informed of the interview referred to, in a letter dated July 19, 2023, “sent to Mr Holness by the DI”. This meeting eventually took place on August 31, 2023. It “was held by the DI and other members of his team at the Office of the Prime Minister with Mr Holness in the presence of his attorneys. The DI explained the genesis of the referral, investigation and possible disproportionality of assets linked to the large movement of funds between business owned solely or partially by Holness. After deliberations, the DI advised Mr Holness that he would be provided with questions before the end of the day to which he should provide written answers.” (Page 17)

Can there be much doubt that our prime minister was aware from at least August 31, 2023, that he was one of those being investigated for “illicit enrichment”? Yet, nine weeks later during a press conference at Jamaica House on November 9, 2023, our prime minister indicated to the media and to the public that the exchanges between the lntegrity Commission and himself were “routine”. Unlike the prime minister, we only learnt that the investigation was anything but “routine” ten months after. In these circumstances, we the public must query, and our prime minister should be asking himself, “Has our Head of Government lived up to the Code of Conduct to which he is obliged to adhere and to which he and other prime ministers have held other ministers accountable?” If this matter were not about the Head of Government, would not our prime minister apply to that minister the “step aside” consequence which he has required of other ministers who fell afoul of the Code of Conduct for Ministers?

Professor Emeritus Trevor Munroe is the founding director of National Integrity Action. Send feedback to info@niajamaica.org or columns@gleanerjm.com