PRIME Minister Andrew Holness has suggested that the law governing the Integrity Commission (IC) be reviewed to prevent the entity from being politicised, even as he said he would not pursue the view that the long-running investigation into his statutory declarations was pulled into the realm of politics.
Holness made the recommendation in a personal statement to the Parliament on Tuesday after the IC’s investigation report into his statutory declarations for the years 2019-2022, as well as the ruling by the IC’s director of corruption prosecution were tabled in the House.
“While I will not pursue the view that this was politicised, I believe it is commonly agreed that the law governing the Integrity Commission is in urgent need of revision. The current context of its operation does weaken its credibility, and we must do everything to ensure that the appropriate laws are in place to prevent the politicisation of the commission.
The director of investigation had recommended that Holness be sanctioned for making false statements in his statutory declarations, by way of omissions. Additionally, the director of investigation recommended that his report be referred to the Financial Investigations Division as the prime minister “owns assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings”.
Stating that he welcomed the fact that the report was “finally tabled two years since this process began”, Holness said he also took note of the fact that the commission tabled both the report and the ruling of the director of corruption prosecution at the same time, unlike the last time when this was not done.
“Based on what is said in the summary, queries were triggered because it is alleged that I had omitted bank accounts from my declarations and one of these accounts was incorrectly reported as a US dollar balance by a financial institution. These matters were cleared as the accounts in question, by my recollection, were dormant, previously reported and the balances in them were J$3,000 and Euro200,” Holness said.
“Subsequently, my declarations were once again referred for further scrutiny for accuracy and completeness. Other accounts were identified and alleged as belonging to me but undeclared. Some of these accounts were opened by my parents as far back as 1975 and my name added later, probably while I was still a child,” he said.
“Many Jamaicans add their children to their accounts for survivorship and in the event of emergency. I have never claimed these as my assets. I am satisfied that the director of corruption prosecution ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support claims that I intentionally omitted bank accounts from my declaration and that there is greater evidence to support my explanation as opposed to evidence to the contrary. I also note that no other matter in the report was referred to the authorised authority, the director of corruption prosecution,” the prime minister said.
Noting that more than 3,600 transactions were examined, 28 bank accounts and over 80 witness statements collected, Holness said, “This effort to pursue me and my affairs led to the hiring of an international forensic accounting examiner for six months. As far as I am aware, only my 2021 declaration was submitted for investigation. After this most thorough interrogation of my personal affairs, which is not in any way connected to public funds, or a benefit resulting from my office, they were ‘unable to come to a conclusion regarding illicit enrichment’. Nonetheless, they concluded that in one of the five years they examined, 2022, there was unexplained growth in net worth of J$1.9 million or less than one per cent of my total net assets. I reject this finding, based on materiality and significance. While I have not had a chance to fully review the specifics of their calculations, just on a cursory review I have seen an error in figures they have used in their calculations.”
He also said he rejects the claim in the report that he has hindered the examinations of his declarations by not supplying information requested.
Additionally, he rejected the finding that he acquired an asset for which the source of funds is not adequately explained.
“The commission pointed out that this whole episode started with an incorrect statement from a bank. So too was the asset in question the subject of errors by the financial institution that managed the asset,” he said.
“Let it be known that I have complied with any obligation placed on me within the law. As far as I am aware, the company with which I am directly associated is compliant and up to date with its tax filings,” Holness said.
With the sitting of the House adjourned immediately after Holness made the statement, Opposition Leader Mark Golding told journalists outside the building that his side would study the IC report carefully before making any substantive comment on it.
“But it’s clear that the prime minister has been under investigation for illicit enrichment and he’s known it since May 2023 and there’s a recommendation that the matter be sent to the Financial Investigations Division for further investigation and that his statutory declarations cannot be certified until these issues are resolved, so that’s a very serious matter,” Golding said.