Editorial | Why Wheatley should go

When Andrew Wheatley was forced to resign from the government eight years ago, he said that his decision was in keeping with his belief in “the tenets of good governance” and commitment to “upholding the public trust”.

“This is necessary to reassure the public that the highest standards of probity are being applied to the administration of the affairs of public bodies under the portfolios” over which he had charge, Dr Wheatley said.

He was right.  Indeed, Prime Minister Andrew Holness not only acted responsibly in demanding the resignation of his then minister of energy, science and technology.     

A similar obligation rests more profoundly on both men today. 

Should the events surrounding Dr Wheatley’s downfall in 2018 have receded, or grown hazy, they related scandal as the state-owned Petrojam oil refinery - one of the public bodies that fell within Dr Wheatley’s portfolio. 

Specifically, allegations swirled of corruption, cronyism, nepotism, loose spending at the refinery - much of which were confirmed in investigations by the Contractor (AuG) General and the Integrity Commission (IC) and aired by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC).   

However, while the investigations and parliamentary hearings tarnished Dr Wheatley for his perceived tolerance, and as a beneficiary, of a culture of permissiveness at Petrojam, he escaped formal censure, although some people lost their jobs and even faced prosecution. 

Dr Wheatley was out of the Cabinet for over seven years, while remaining a parliamentary backbencher. He returned to the government after last September’s general election when Dr Holness named him a minister in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), responsible for science and technology.  

It is not clear if Prime Minister Holness was aware that Dr Wheatley was being investigated by the IC when he was returned to the Cabinet. For as bad as Dr Wheatley’s circumstances may have been in 2018, what he faces now is far more egregious. The prosecutor at the Integrity Commission has ruled that he should be charged for corruption. Or rather, for illicit enrichment.

In a report tabled in Parliament last week after a long investigation into Dr Wheatley’s financial affairs, Kevon Stephenson, the Integrity Commission’s director of Investigation (DI) concluded that the Cabinet minister, over a nine-year period (2013-2022), acquired or owned J$164 million in assets “disproportionate to his lawful earnings”.

“... When given the opportunity to provide an explanation as to how he came by said assets, he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation,” the report said.  “The DI further concludes that Dr Wheatley’s owning assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings, contravenes section 14(5) of the CPA (Corruption Prevention Act).”

Among the other findings by the IC’s investigator were that in 2011 and 2012, when Dr Wheatley was an opposition legislator, he improperly made a “nil return” filing with the tax authorities for a business he then owned, Western Medical, suggesting that the entity had no taxable income or transaction to declare and therefore no possibility of a tax liability.  That happened in circumstances, the IC said, “where that entity was engaged in business and from Dr Wheatley’s evidence earned up to approximately $26 million”.

“... His failure to file personal income tax returns pose tax compliance concerns,” Mr Stephenson’s report said.

In several instances, too, the investigator said Dr Wheatley knowingly made false statements in his annual income, assets and liabilities findings, especially between 2018 and 2019, in breach of the Integrity Commission Act.

Dr Wheatley has challenged the investigative findings, claiming for instance, that the commission appeared to have been ignorant of the permissibility of the structure of one of his real estate joint ventures. The commission was wrong, he told Parliament in not taking into account “approximately $168 million in rental income which I lawfully accumulated and declared over the nine years”.

Dr Wheatley’s challenges notwithstanding, Kelly-Ann Murdock, the Integrity Commission’s independent director of corruption prosecution, determined that there was sufficient in the document to support charges against the minister for the following offences:

• Knowingly makes a false statement in a statutory declaration, contrary to section 15(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Integrity of Members Act, 1973, for the period 2013-2017;
• Knowingly makes a false statement in a statutory declaration; contrary to section 43(2)(a) of the Integrity Commission Act, 2017, for the period 2018-2022;
• Failing, without reasonable cause, to provide information as the Director of Information and Complaints required, contrary to section 43(1)(b) of the Integrity Commission Act, 2017; and
• Illicit Enrichment, contrary to section 14(5) of the Corruption Prevention Act, 2001.

The Gleaner’s Editorial Board has arrived at no conclusion of Dr Wheatley’s innocence of guilt. These are not frivolous allegations. A reasonable and seasoned prosecutor would not be expected to flippantly prefer them.

Whatever the final outcome of this matter, Dr Wheatley's continued presence in the Cabinet at this time casts a shadow on the upholding of good governance, transparency and equality under the law. In other words, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. His place in the Cabinet, the primary instrument of government policy, lends to the perception that he is in a position to lay a thumb on the scale.  It also has the potential for further eroding public trust in the institutions of the state, which Prime Minister Holness cannot allow to happen.