Supreme Court puts pause on SMA probe

The Supreme Court has granted the Spectrum Management Authority (SMA) and its managing director, Dr Maria Myers-Hamilton, permission to seek judicial review of two notices linked to an ongoing investigation by the Integrity Commission. The court has also issued interim injunctions restraining the anti-corruption body from continuing its probe, using the disputed notices and a witness summons.

However, in a ruling on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Carole Barnaby rejected the SMA’s bid for several orders, including the return of items seized in the Integrity Commission’s probe. The court also declined to quash an April notice.

The ruling arose from an urgent application by the SMA challenging the legality of several notices and a witness summons issued by the Integrity Commission in connection with an investigation into alleged corruption, irregularities and impropriety at the statutory body.

The claim was brought by the SMA, which regulates Jamaica’s radio frequency spectrum, and its managing director.

The SMA’s application was based on 44 grounds, alleging “procedural unfairness, irrationality, unreasonableness, illegality, and abuse of power and discretion” by the commission and its director of investigation, Kevon Stephenson.

Barnaby found that the SMA and Myers-Hamilton had established arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success, particularly in relation to notices dated July 9 and July 15, 2025, and a witness summons dated July 14.

Fishing expedition

The SMA, represented by King’s Counsel Georgia Gibson Henlin, argued that the notices and summonses were procedurally flawed, vague and lacking in specificity. She contended that the documents referred broadly to allegations of corruption and impropriety without identifying whether the investigation related to government contracts or prescribed licences, making it difficult for the authority to determine the relevance of the material requested.

In agreeing with the applicants, the judge accepted that the breadth of the language used raised legitimate concerns that the exercise could amount to a “fishing expedition”, including the possibility that the requests were being used to obtain Dr Myers-Hamilton’s personnel file.

The judge also found merit in the complaint that the Integrity Commission and its representatives sought to “circumvent” the SMA’s right to seek legal advice after the director of investigation issued a witness summons to a senior employee to attend a hearing and bring files that were sought in the disputed notices earlier.

That summons was issued after the SMA withdrew its consent for Integrity Commission officials to enter its premises and inspect documents in July.

The SMA raised objections to the July notices, but the Integrity Commission did not provide a response and proceeded with its hearing involving the employee. The judge acknowledged that the Integrity Commission’s notice contemplates that persons may have legal questions, as the document asks recipients to put into writing reasons why they may not be able to comply.

“Their failure (IC and Stephenson) to consider and communicate a response to communications of inability to comply, and the issue thereafter of the 14th July summons calling for production of the same files requested in the notice, I come to the view that the applicants have demonstrated that there are arguable grounds for judicial review with realistic prospects of success,” Barnaby wrote.

On the IC’s argument that it is not restricted from using avenues available to it to pursue its investigation, and not subject to anyone’s control except the courts, Barnaby said: “Whatever the respondents’ view of the scope of their authority, they are both creatures of statute and must act within the four corners of their enabling legislation.”

To preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the judicial review, the court granted two interim injunctions.

Under the first, the Integrity Commission and its agents are restrained from entering or further entering the SMA’s premises, or from examining, inspecting or copying documents in purported execution of the challenged notices and summonses.

The second injunction requires the Integrity Commission to seal all personnel files, including that of Myers-Hamilton, as well as any other documents seized under the disputed instruments.

Barnaby accepted submissions that allowing the Integrity Commission to continue and complete its investigation using the contested material could render any eventual court orders nugatory and undermine the SMA’s right of access to the court.

However, the court declined to grant leave for an order of mandamus compelling the immediate return of documents seized during visits to the SMA on April 11 and July 16.

The judge held that the applicants failed to identify any specific statutory duty requiring the Integrity Commission or its director of investigation to return the seized material, a necessary precondition for the grant of mandamus.

She noted, however, that if the SMA succeeds at the substantive hearing in quashing the notices and summonses, the court would retain the incidental power to order the return of the documents.

The court also rejected the SMA’s claim that the Integrity Commission acted unlawfully by removing documents without a warrant, in breach of Section 17J of the Revenue Administration Act.

Barnaby ruled that while the Integrity Commission has search and seizure powers under the Act, Section 51 of the Integrity Commission Act expressly permits entry onto government-owned premises to inspect documents without a warrant.

The SMA, as an incorporated public body, failed to establish that its premises did not fall within that exception.

The matter will now proceed to a full judicial review, at which the SMA will seek orders quashing the Integrity Commission’s notices and summonses and prohibiting any further action based on them.

According to court filings, the Integrity Commission launched its investigation in December 2023. It is examining “allegations of corruption, irregularities and impropriety”, including whether any member of the authority breached the law.

The probe includes scrutiny of steam cleaning and sanitisation contracts awarded between 2020 and 2024.

The first hearing of the fixed-date claim is set for February 19 next year.

Stephanie Williams, Lemar Neale and Vasheney Headlam, instructed by Henlin Gibson Henlin, also appeared for the SMA and Myers-Hamilton, while Annaliesa Lindsay, instructed by Lindsay Law Chambers, is representing the Integrity Commission and its director of investigation.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com