ATTORNEYS for Prime Minister Andrew Holness, in petitioning the Supreme Court to review the legality of the actions of the Integrity Commission during its probe of his statutory declarations, argued in an affidavit filed on Monday that the reports of the entity, which have been made public, “are tainted and ought to be struck down”.

It said, too, that the commission and its director of investigation overstepped their powers and acted “illegally and unfairly” in recommending that Holness be investigated for “illicit enrichment”.

They have also sought the court’s opinion on the decision by Stephenson and the commission to refer Holness’s private companies to the Tax Administration and the Financial Investigations Division to keep the investigation for illicit enrichment open in relation to Holness’s 2021 declarations despite findings indicating that there was “no unexplained growth”.

The attorneys are seeking an order of certiorari from the Supreme Court which would allow it to scrutinise the commission’s process in arriving at their rulings and then quash the report, its findings, and recommendations in respect of the August 2024 report and the September 2024 special reports.

The legal team has further sought an order of mandamus to compel Stephenson to recommend to the commission that Holness be exonerated of culpability in relation to his 2021 and 2023 declarations.

The attorneys have also sought declarations by the court to, among other things, affirm that the submission of the reports to Parliament for tabling, except for the matters relating to four accounts held by Holness, “was unlawful and or illegal”.

A further declaration has been sought to strike down the “provisions of the Integrity Commission Act given the lack of fairness, impartiality, and independence in the exercise of the functions of the divisions and the commission as presently structured”.

Furthermore, the lawyers want the court to declare that Section 14 (5) of the Corruption Prevention Act — which speaks to prosecution of a public figure for illicit enrichment if they are unable when requested to show proof of how they came by assets disproportionate to their earnings — be “struck down” insofar as it breaches Holness’s rights to due process under the constitution.

In addition, the court is being asked to declare that Holness was entitled to notice of the decision or to a hearing by the commission before it accepted the recommendations to send the report or any part of it for consideration to any other body.

Meanwhile, the tribunal is also being asked to order the investigations to end. The prime minister has also sought damages for breach of privacy, negligent investigation, aggravated damages, vindicatory damages, damages, cost and further or other relief that the court finds necessary.

The prime minister, in the affidavit, has also disputed claims by the report that he misappropriated funds from his company Positive Jamaica Foundation. Holness, who said the foundation is “not actively engaged in business”, is used by him to make grants or donations or to assist persons from time to time who appeal to him for help. He said while the company is used for charitable purposes, it is not a charity and is not registered as such.

In the 179-page report into his statutory declarations which was tabled in the House of Representatives last month, the commission’s director of investigation ruled that no charges be brought against Holness for failing to declare four bank accounts during his statutory filings, the commission raised a litany of questions in relation to bond transactions and loans taken out by companies in which at least one of his sons is connected. Questions were raised about whether the companies were compliant with their statutory filings with TAJ.

The tabling of the investigation report, an addendum, the commission’s ruling and the special report marked the culmination of a two-year investigation during which the prime minister’s statutory declarations remained uncertified.

The investigation sought to ascertain whether Holness owned assets disproportionate to his lawful earnings, and if he had in fact made false statements in his statutory declarations by way of omissions, contrary to law.

The four bank accounts in question had balances totalling just under $446,000 and were in the names of Holness’s mother, father and a former constituency worker. Holness had told Parliament that he was added to the accounts in the names of his parents and, in the case of the former constituency worker, he said he remembered encouraging her to open the bank account but did not recall how his name came to be on the account.

The matters that have been referred to the FID and TAJ involves more than $150 million worth of transactions with various companies, including Barita Investments, and includes a US$94,000 bond.