REJECTED

The Supreme Court has stayed the judicial review proceedings brought by Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission (IC), meaning that the highly anticipated October hearing cannot proceed until an appeal against a court judgment is determined.

The stay follows a ruling on Friday in which Justice Althea Jarrett rejected Holness’ bid to strike out what he described as “scandalous” portions of a 108-page March affidavit filed by Craig Beresford, the commission’s director of information and complaints.

Holness was successful in getting the court to order the IC to disclose certain documents prepared by officials connected to the probe of his financial affairs. His legal team pointed to three named individuals and wanted the court to order the disclosure of “all documents” they prepared, including the resignation letter for one of them.

The judge reportedly said the request was too broad and narrowed the disclosure to certain documents if they existed.

A report done by an international forensic accountant, which had been previously requested, was provided by the commission earlier this month.

The judge denied Holness access to certain contested documents, including redacted internal meeting records that, he argued, were critical to his case. The IC had argued that the redacted documents contained details of unrelated cases, including investigations, and that disclosure could breach the law.

Justice Jarrett granted Holness and his three co-claimants – Imperium Holdings Limited, Positive Media Solutions, and Positive Jamaica Foundation – permission to appeal both rulings.

In its application for permission to appeal, Holness’ legal team reportedly raised important points of law, particularly concerning disclosure in judicial review proceedings. The court noted that the matter raised issues of legal importance and that appellate guidance would assist in clarifying the proper course in disclosure applications, The Gleaner understands.

‘SCANDALOUS’ INFORMATION

Holness had targeted at least 12 paragraphs in Beresford’s affidavit, arguing that some accompanying exhibits were “an abuse of process, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious”, with prejudicial value outweighing any probative worth. But the IC countered that the statements directly responded to Holness’ own claims and were within Beresford’s personal knowledge.

The contested sections and exhibits include internal IC assessments of Holness’ finances, investments, and approved income declarations dating back to 1998. Some of the issues covered a 2019 report on Holness’ businesses, concerns about non-declarations, investments in financial instruments, and companies such as Olint and CashPlus, two failed investment schemes.

The case is part of a broader judicial review and constitutional challenge brought in September 2024 by Holness and the three entities against Beresford, IC Director of Investigations Kevon Stephenson, and the IC itself.

The legal action contests the fairness of the commission’s probe into Holness’ finances and questions the constitutionality of the Integrity Commission Act and the illicit enrichment provision of the Corruption Prevention Act.

Stephenson had previously flagged concerns over alleged discrepancies in Holness’ 2021 filings and transactions exceeding $470 million linked to companies associated with the prime minister. Holness has denied any wrongdoing.

The commission and its officials are represented by law firm Hylton Powell, and Holness and the other claimants are represented by Henlin Gibson Henlin.

editorial@gleanerjm.com