Editorial | Judicial review open to Montague

It is unfortunate that even senior members of the government, including the justice minister, Delroy Chuck, continue the unwarranted campaign of undermining the Integrity Commission (IC).

Their latest lightning rod is the IC’s reversing of its adverse findings against Peter Bunting for his handling of two appeals against the refusal/revocation of firearm licences when he was the national security minister between 2012 and 2016.

The argument of the government legislators is that the commission displayed bias by not doing the same for Mr Bunting’s successor at the security ministry and governing Jamaica Labour Party member of parliament, Robert Montague. According to Mr Chuck, the Integrity Commission has no integrity and government members now have no confidence in its reports.

“The commission has demonstrated a certain bias, a certain unfairness, which demonstrates that this Integrity Commission lacks integrity,” Mr Chuck declared in Parliament, to howls of approval from the government side. That is in line with the ongoing campaign to weaken the commission by probing at every perceived weakness, hoping to deliver failure.

POINTS TO CONSIDER

There are, however, two points to consider with respect to this controversy.

While it is unfortunate, and messy, that the change happened a year after the commission’s initial report was tabled in Parliament – raising legitimate questions about the cause of the lapse – the about-turn with respect to Mr Bunting was on the basis of fuller information that was always in the IC’s possession.

For some reason, Mr Bunting’s entire exculpatory statement didn’t make it into the report. Neither did it appear to have been fully reviewed and analysed until his recent public complaint about the findings, and his discussion of the issue with the IC’s chairman, the former Court of Appeal president, Seymour Panton. The reason for this failure demands full explanation from the commission.

Second, the fact Mr Montague had wide discretion in determining appeals against refusals by the Firearms Licensing Authority (FLA) and its review board was already factored into the IC’s criticisms of his overturning of their rulings in respect of several persons against whom there were adverse intelligence traces.

Indeed, in admonishing the former minister, the commission’s director of investigation acknowledged “the unquestioned discretion of the minister” in making determinations. He nonetheless felt that Mr Montague didn’t exercise good judgement in those specific matters.

Further, in reversing its original conclusions about Mr Bunting, the Integrity Commission implied a clear distinction between his action and that of Mr Montague, even though, in law both men enjoyed the same power of discretion.

In Mr Bunting’s case, he acted in accordance with the advice of the review board, after the FLA had declined questionable applicants’ firearm licences. In fact, in one case Mr Bunting did less than what the review board recommended.

MITIGATING FACTORS

These were significant mitigating factors in favour of Mr Bunting, especially given the eminence of the members of the review board. However, Mr Bunting could also have ignored their recommendation if he felt that the applicants didn’t have the temperament or moral criteria for gun ownership.

Mr Montague, on the other hand, albeit with the support of an internal review panel, acted contrary to the decision of the FLA and the recommendations of its review board. Which he had the power to do.

Indeed, the Integrity Commission’s investigators say in the report that nothing substantially changed with respect to the people who were subject to the review, and for whom Mr Montague approved firearm licences.

While Mr Montague – either in his explanatory article a year ago or in his statement to the House last week – has offered any new evidence or analysis that would obviously impeach the commission’s views of his actions on the basis of facts, he is absolutely in his right to be peeved over their interpretation of his behaviour. It is nonetheless regrettable that he sought to characterise the commission’s review of its findings against Peter Bunting while leaving in place those against him in terms of class prejudice.

“It is like there is one rule for some and another for we country people,” Montague said.

He, like Mr Chuck, argued that the IC acted with bias and that once it reviewed the findings against Mr Bunting, the entire report should have been reassessed.

In that respect, Mr Montague would be within his right to seek judicial review of the IC’s conduct rather than seeking to politicise the process by having the matter sent to the parliamentary oversight committee “to review and consider whether the Integrity Commission acted fairly or in a principled manner”.

This issue was another opportunity for government legislators to continue their unrelenting onslaught against the IC. Insisting that the commission works efficiently and well is one thing. Attempting to undermine its confidence and seeking to impose laws to make it impotent is quite another. Jamaicans, therefore, must be vigilant.