Prime Minister’s Statutory Declarations Likely to Be Certified by August

Kingston, Jamaica — It is anticipated that the Prime Minister’s statutory declarations will be certified by the Integrity Commission, gazetted, and made public via the Commission’s website before the end of August 2025.

This expectation arises as the Prime Minister continues legal action to determine—through the courts—why his declarations have not yet been certified, despite the Integrity Commission having closed all investigations into his financial affairs.

As part of the court proceedings, the Prime Minister’s legal team would be entitled to access the full range of evidentiary materials, including:

• Forensic audit reports
• Minutes of Commission meetings where the declarations were discussed
• Communications between the Director of Information, the Director of Investigation, and the Commissioners
• All referrals made by the Director of Investigation and the corresponding responses from the Commission

If disclosed, these materials would become part of the court record, and some—albeit with redactions—could become public. This could offer the public an unprecedented view into the Commission’s internal operations and decision-making processes, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability.

There is growing belief that, to avoid such exposure and to preserve institutional credibility, the Integrity Commission may act swiftly to certify the Prime Minister’s declarations. This move could render the court case moot and redirect focus onto the Commission’s delayed action, which forms the basis of the legal challenge.

The recent appointment of a new Chairman to the Integrity Commission further suggests a shift toward restoring public confidence in the agency. Certifying the declarations could be seen as a strategic step in that direction.

Once certified, this issue—heavily featured in the opposition’s election campaign—may lose traction, significantly altering the political landscape ahead of the next general elections.

The outcome of those investigations is closely watched by the general public as we push to ensure those who are corrupt are held to account.

While we all want the guilty to be punished we must at the same time ensure the process is fair and transparent at all times.

I therefore draw your attention to a corruption Investigation case in the Commonwealth of Western Australian, it’s a rather interesting case.

The behaviour of the Commissioner for Western Australia  (WA) in Tokyo, Japan in 2019.

Summary of the case

The head of the Japan office was Mr Craig Steven Peacock, Commissioner since 2002

Mr Peacock was a public servant who, among other things, arranged visits for Premiers, Ministers, parliamentary delegations and others. He sought out trade opportunities for the benefit of WA. Mr Peacock was trusted and afforded great discretion. He was the State’s representative.

The allegations were Mr Peacock had been enriching himself at the State’s expense and betraying the trust placed in him.

The allegations against Mr Peacock were many, and in a damning report it reported the following:

In the Commission’s opinion, Mr Peacock has corruptly used his position to obtain benefits for himself and others over many years. He has done so to the detriment of the State.

Some of the allegations

In many ways and for many years, Mr Peacock corruptly took advantage of his position to enrich himself and obtain benefits for his friends. He is now paying the price. Taxation authorities in Japan and Australia may take an interest in his finances. He is jobless, without a Japanese visa and without any realistic prospects. He faces the prospect of legal action for recovery of the debt owed to the State.

The report by this Anti Corruption Agency is a very good report, which shows the skills of the investigative team, however the report must be always based on the facts which were uncovered during the investigation at all time.

The entire report which covers 3 years was just 68 pages, but had all the information needed by the general public which was reviewing the case.

PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR OF THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Mr Peacock took issue with the conduct of the Anti-Corruption Agency and reported the matter to the PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR of the Corruption and Crime Commission, which launched an investigation into the claims by Mr Peacock.

The Inspector reported the following.

For the most part, the procedures used in this instance were effective and appropriate, and there is no basis to dispute the Commission’s opinion of serious misconduct. However, there were three matters which raised substantive concerns for me.

Note #24, this is a striking example of effective oversight, which is intended to bring about procedural fairness, even when person under investigation have been found to have engaged in corrupt conduct.

It seeks to correct a wrong done on the individual by the Anti Corruption Agency, without the need to appear before a court of law, which is what exist in Jamaica via a judicial review.

This not only reduces court time, but says to the Anti Corruption Agency, you are not above the law and you are subjected checks and balances and oversight by the laws of the Commonwealth.

This is lesson for the Integrity Commission in Jamaica and those who are of the belief that oversight means making a attempt to silence the commission, as nothing could be further from the truth.

I know its long but I had to make the point .

Bless

More coming in another few days, stay tune.

1. Unemployment is now at its lowest level in history of 4.2%
2. Labour participation rate is at 68.8%, the highest in the Caribbean and higher than UK, Canada and USA
3. Crimes are down with murder down 18%
4. Now new taxes in 6 years.
5. Government is giving back $11b in tax credits and more than 50% of those eligible have already applied in just 4 days
6. The country continues to see growth
7. Debt to GDP is almost at 70% coming from 120% under the PNP

So are these things above, a sign the country is heading in the wrong direction ?

Some people may very say “ the country is doing well but what about me” ?

Let’s take a look at this via two graphs.

From Feb 2016 to August 2024, ordinary Jamaicans have deposited an astonishing $347billion in savings account at an average rate of $3.4b per month in our Commercial Banks . I say average Jamaican individuals since the more sophisticated amongst us, don’t place our monies in savings account, but instead place these in Non Deposit taking institutions like Proven, Barita, JMMB, Proven, Mayberry etc.

Looking at the Credit unions, we see ordinary Jamaicans having deposits of a jaw dropping $144b at the end of June 2024 moving from just over $70b in Feb 2016. Jamaicans are putting away an average of $796m per month in savings accounts and our Credit Unions.

Nuttin nah gwan ?

Wrong Direction ?

Tell me what right direction is .

We have NEVER seen this kind of saving in the history of Jamaica and full credit must go the JLP government that has done an amazing job

The report which was tabled 3 weeks ago, have been reviewed by many bloggers and vloggers and many glaring errors have been found, from accounting to mathematical errors, as well as a plethora of personal views and opinions not substantiated by the facts/evidence found during the investigation.

The lack of an executive summary is even more egregious and begs the question of quality control as well as the directions given to management team by the Commissioners.

This investigation lasted three years and the Jamaican taxpayers would have forked out an astonishingly high figure for salaries, wages and fees to the senior executives at the Integrity Commission.

The big question is, are we the taxpayers getting value for money.

My short answer is hell no.

These individuals are of the misguided view that cash flow equates to profits and as a result some sort of tax liabilities will/should follow.

I will use a an example of a listed company to disprove that position.

Let’s examine TransJamaica Highway Annual Audited Report for the 2020 Financial Year.

TJH report profit/(loss)  before taxes of  US$2,484 Million ( J$355m).They paid no taxes as a result of this loss.

When a company reports a loss on their income statement, they are not subjected to income tax, but does that mean they had no revenue or expenses for the period under, review, absolutely not.

In fact for the 2020 TJH had income of US$45,382 (J$6.49Billion ). How could a company that recorded a staggering income of nearly $6.5billion not pay a dollar in income taxes to the government.

That is what some people on social media would be asking, showing a clear lack of understanding of basic accounting. I would not even go to venture into tax laws since than can be very complicated, but in the very simple case, we see a company can generate significant levels of revenue and good cash flow but pay no taxes, since it never made a profit.

See attached showing what I mentioned above.

Note the positive figure under taxes is what is called a tax credit, which is available to companies who have registered losses in previous years. These losses can be carried forward and set off against any future tax liabilities thus reducing your tax liabilities going forward. (Capped at 50% in any one year)

Cash Flow

An examination of the cash flow statement of TJH shows the following

Starting cash  & cash equivalent = US $9,099

Ending cash & cash equivalent = US $7,073

Change in cash & cash equivalent = US$1,967

The change in cash and cash equivalent  ie cash flow was US$1,967 or J$281m .

How could there be so much flow of cash from this statement and TJH paid no taxes. As I have mentioned before flow of cash does not equate to a tax liability.

So cash flow , revenue and expenses does not automatically equate to a income tax liability

Bless

Jay Brown

In September of last year, Mr Ryan Evans was trailed from a bank having made a withdrawal of a large sum of money,  and was shot and robbed by men on a bike.

Immediately after the incident Greg Christie the Executive Director of the Imtegrity Commission when asked to comment on the incident said “ Ask the Government”.

The country was alarmed at this statement and demanded that Greg Christie withdraw the statement and apologize, 10 months later he has done neither.

In the annual report just tabled by the Integrity Commission a week ago, the Chairman of the Integrity Commission wrote the following.

Justice Panton is clearly saying he cannot understand why no one has been held in relation to this incident since it occurred in broad daylight and in the absence of bushes or Zinc fences.

It is inconceivable that the Chairman of the Integrity Commission never had any conversation with the Director to ascertain if he was helping the police with the investigation before he made the comments he did in his annual report.

Given this new development which came Tuesday, July 16, 2024, from the police, I want to urge Justice Panton if he has not already done so, to tell Mr Ryan  Edwards that he ought to speak with the police so the investigation into the crime can be advanced and solved.

The public is now very suspicious of the action of Mr Ryan Edwards as under normal circumstances those impacted by crime where there was robbery of a lot of cash and an attempt on someone’s life would  want to cooperate with law enforcement to ensure the matter is thoroughly investigated and solved as soon as possible.

Justice Panton at the same time owes the public a statement because his comments in his annual report cannot be left as is, given the statement from the police, we therefore urge Justice Panton to respond as soon as possible to clear the air. We want the truth and nothing else, and it must be very succinct

I am not a journalist but I have a deep interest in the facts and the truth that emanates from those facts.

With that in mind, I decided to spend about 45 minutes today reviewing statements from the Integrity Commission, the Integrity Commission Act of 2017 and media reports to try and understand some basic facts.

Truth be told, the Integrity Commission has been very slick in how it issues media releases and the content of such releases, and it takes an inquiring mind to review what has been released at its meaning.

The first part of my research was to examine the wording of the act to determine if those under investigation are told or allowed to review the findings of those under investigation before they are tabled in accordance with law ie tabled in Parliament , See figure 1 below

Figure 1 Integrity Commission Act 2017

As one can see, there are no provisions explicitly outlined here for the subject of any investigation to be advised on the outcome of any such investigation before the matter is tabled in Parliament.

I suspect the Integrity Commission recognized this “defect” in the legislation and on July 5 in a press release advised the public that it had amended its internal policies on June 7, 2023, and would now allow those who are the subject of an investigation to be so advised at the end of such investigation, see figure 2 and 3

Fig 2. Integrity Commission Press Release July 5, 2023

Figure 3.  Extracted section of the press release and my comments.

Given the above facts, you are now left to examine this and form your conclusions.

Bless

Later that afternoon, all media houses in Jamaica broke the news that the “illicit 6” had been reduced to the” illicit duo” based on their reading of the document based on past interpretations of previous reports.

By Wednesday, July 10, 2024, the Chairman of the Intergity was forced to issue a press release indicating that ALL the media houses, as well as vloggers and bloggers, had read the report wrong and instead of the “illicit 6” it was now the “illicit 8” as the previous 6 were not closed out and they cannot comment on those either.

So, the question must be, how did everyone seem to have read this particular report wrong and I believe I have found the answer.

To properly understand why everyone got it wrong we have to go back to the first time this was reported by the Integrity Commission in its annual report or 2020/2021 see extract below in Fig 1

Note this list 2 Parliamentarians had been referred to the Integrity Commission for illicit enrichment.

Figure 1 2020/2021 IC Annual Report

Lets now examine the Integrity Commission’s report of 2021/2022

See figure 2 below

Figure 2 2021/2022 IC Annual Report

From this report, we can see that an additional Parliamentarian has been added to the list of those who have been referred to to Integrity Commission for illicit enrichment.

When added to data from Figure 1, we would now have a total of three (3) Parliamentarians who have been referred to the Integrity Commission.

In reviewing the 2021/2022 report there was no mention of any of the previous two cases being disposed of during the reporting period so one can make a reasonable assumption that the two previously referred are still under investigation plus the most recent addition.

It therefore means at the end of the 2021/2022 report period a total of three (3) Parliamentarians were under investigation by the Integrity Commission.

I must add at this stage, that this information was never carried by mainstream media for reasons only known to them (Except the Gleaner)

What happened last year in the 2022/2023 report by the Integrity Commission

The Integrity Commission in its 2022/2023 annual report, indicated that 6 Parliamentarians have been referred to it in the reporting period for illicit enrichment and this is where the term “ illicit 6” was coined by the PNP, see Figure 3

Fig 3    2022/2023 IC Annual Report

When this report was published all media houses reported that six lawmakers were under probe for illicit  enrichment see Fig 4 below  

Figure 4 Media reports based on IC 2022/2023 annual report

Figure 5 Media reports based on IC 2022/2023 annual report

This was reported for the entire year with some of these additional headlines below

For the entire year media reported on the illicit 6 and at no time did the Integrity Commission step in and correct these media reports and chastise them for not including the illicit 3 from the previous two years.

Why did the Chairman of the Integrity Commission Justice Panton not seek to set the record straight or did the chairman agree with these reports?

I, therefore, have three questions for Justice Panton.

• Were the reports in 2023 saying 6 Parliamentarians were under investigation for illicit enrichment incorrect
• If the reports on the “illict 6” were correct, can you  say why, when the 2022/2023 report did not say anything about the previous 3 persons who were under investigation for illicit enrichment
• If the reports on the illicit 6 were wrong, why did you not set the record straight at that time?

What happened last year in 2022/2024report by the Integrity Commission

The Integrity Commission in its 2022/2023 annual report, indicated that 2 Parliamentarians have been referred to it in the reporting period for illicit enrichment See Fig 8

Fig 8. Extract from the IC 2023/2024 annual report

Once this report was published all the media houses reported that the “illicit 6” was now the “illicit two” See headlines from the various media houses below

The Integrity Commission having seen this information immediately issued a press release to clarify what it sees as “misleading” information by all the media houses in Jamaica, who reported the same way they had reported on the 2023 report with no objection from the Integrity Commission.

Here is the IC media release

Fig 11 Integrity Commission

The Integrity Commission in a skillfully worded press release noted that 8 Parlimanentarions were referred to in April 2022 to March 2024 but remain silent on the previous referrals in 2020 and 2021, which I find curious.

What is even more worrisome is what appears to be an attempt to complicate a simple matter but choosing to issue a press release in 2024 but not one in 2023, when the media would have misinterpreted the very same information but not including the previous referrals. So when one looks at the reports from 2018 – 2024 we get the following

Fig 12. Total number of Parliamentarians under investigation for illicit enrichment.

The Integrity Commission press release says 8 have been referred between 2022/2024 is correct, but it skillfully tried to evade scrutiny by refusing to speak to the previous years using the very same methodology used when crafting this report.

Why did the Integrity not go the full way and clear up all the years so the public can have a true figure of the Parliamentarians who have been referred and who are under investigation?

The Integrity Commission must stop its selective reporting process and be honest and level with the country.

It’s hurting the fight against corruption by the less than honest with its reporting mechanism.

We need an Integrity Commission whose words and work we can trust as well as its intentions and right now may have been let down by the results.

From 2018 – 2024 ie over 6 years not a single investigation into illicit enrichment by Parliamentarians has been concluded and or disposed of, which is UNACCEPTABLE!

What is even worse, we have had 6 annual reports totaling over 1000 pages and absolutely nothing has been said about the investigation into any of the 11 referrals/investigations.

In the 2022/2022 report, the Integrity Commission cited 6Parliamentarians  and 28 Public officials as being investigated for illicit enrichment. Are we to assume that members of civil society and the media

1. Did not read this report and so were never aware these 28 Public Officials
2. Read the report and chose to ignore the glaring 28 public officials
3. Read the report and decided they want the public to focus on 6 only

I don’t have the answer, so only they can respond

In the same Integrity report the following was noted

The government of Jamaica has provided a level of transparency never seen before with government and just for the public information, the Integrity Commission provides a quarterly update of all government contracts, to include.

1. Value of each contract
2. The procurement entity
3. Value of the contract
4. Who received the contract/

The information can be accessed here.

https://integrity.gov.jm/qca-consol

Example of what you will see on this site

In addition to this, the Government of Jamaica has added another site that allows for ordinary Jamaicans to view the contracts that have been put out to tender and all details related to these contracts.

This site which has been approved by the World Bank is  Government of Jamaica Electronic Procurement Portal and can be accessed here  https://www.gojep.gov.jm/epps/home.do

This level of transparency which are all designed to reduce the incidence of theft and illicit enrichment has never existed in Jamaca before.

Here is an example of what you can get here.

I say to the people don’t be misled by so called civil society groups and the media, instead seek out the information yourself.

The issue of illicit enrichment via contracts by Parliamentarians and politicians in general has gotten extremely difficult and while the same may exist for public officials, the fact that they are an integral part of the process, allows them greater access to public funds.

If we really want to stamp out corruption and in particular illicit enrichment, we are likely to get greater levels of success from going after to a larger pool of people with greater access to public funds.

I put it to you that the noise being generated by the Integrity Commission 2022/2023 is just that, noise all, and it not meant to reduce incidences of illicit enrichment  but are instead  meant to bring about a political coup and entrust government to those they favour.

Two  public officials listed. One went to court and was found not guilty, while the other had a court case, the outcome which was never found. The timelines were a bit off, since the Gleaner report was in 2013 yet the public official who was already before the courts was listed in the 2019/2020 report. Of note one public official pleaded guilty to illicit enrichment in the Gleaner report. This is in keeping with my statement above , where I asserted that the public officials have the greatest access to public funds and is where the focus ought to be.

Integrity Commission 2020/2021 Annual Report

In the 2020/2021 report, the Integrity Commission cited 2 Parliamentarians  and 6 Public officials as being investigated for illicit enrichment. Are we to assume that members of civil society and the media :

a) Did not read this report and so were never aware these two
b) Read the report , but chose not to make the information public for whatever reason
c) Did not think it would gain any political traction so did not comment
I don’t have the answer, so only they can respond

Integrity Commission 2021/2022 Annual Report

In the 2021/2022 report, the Integrity Commission cited 1 Parliamentarians  and 3 Public officials as being investigated for illicit enrichment. Are we to assume that members of civil society and the media

1. Did not read this report and so were never aware these two
2. Read the report , but chose not to make the information public for whatever reason
3. Did not think it would gain any political traction so did not comment

I don’t have the answer, so only they can respond