BRING EVIDENCE

A suggestion by two senior government lawmakers that Roneiph Lawrence, the acting director of corruption prosecution (DCP) at the Integrity Commission (IC), may be conflicted in matters relating to the “political fraternity” has been met with a decisive response from the chairman of the Integrity Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Carol Lawrence-Beswick.

In a four-page response to leaders of government business in the Upper and Lower Houses, Kamina Johnson Smith and Edmund Bartlett, respectively, the IC chairman asked them to produce “cogent and unequivocal information” on which the anti-corruption body can rely before an investigation can be done.

The two senior parliamentary leaders, who are also Cabinet ministers, wrote to the IC chairman on April 11, requesting her urgent intervention for a “prompt and thorough investigation” into the matter.

Lawrence-Beswick said she is amenable to addressing the concerns raised by the senior government parliamentarians insofar as the Integrity Commission Act allows.

Bartlett and Johnson Smith have signalled their discomfort with the perceived, alleged and/or actual bias of the commission’s acting director of corruption prosecution and the alleged unacceptable pressure being allegedly exerted on certain commission staff members to cause certain decisions to be made.

The senior government legislators also had misgivings about the possible appointment of Lawrence to the post of DCP.

In their letter, the senior lawmakers highlighted as one basis of their concern “a social media post on January 26 this year by Dr Dayton Campbell, which is being widely circulated and describing Lawrence as his friend of over 20 years”.

According to the IC chairman, the two senior parliamentarians concluded, based on their belief in the accuracy of the social media post, that “any decision taken by Mr Lawrence in respect of members of the political fraternity will certainly be open to question”.

In their letter, Bartlett and Johnson Smith outlined certain principles they embraced. Noting that she shared those principles, the IC chairman said those propositions are fundamental to any “interrogation” by the commission.

The parliamentary leaders indicated that they did not question Lawrence’s professional qualifications or questioned any individual’s constitutional right of association. They also said they did not seek to interfere in the operations of the IC.

Public confidence and trust

Further, the government leaders argued that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be manifestly and demonstrably done.

Bartlett and Johnson Smith also indicate in their letter that the IC’s success “depends greatly on public confidence and trust, which cannot be sustained if there is a perception of bias or other improper conduct of its affairs”.

“We are, therefore, agreed that any such’ interrogation’ would have to be conducted as fairly, impartially and transparently as is possible. Justice would no doubt have to be done, not only in the eyes of the parliamentarians, but also in the eyes of the persons against whom a complaint or allegation is being made,” Lawrence-Beswick said.

She insisted that a primary component of a carefully conducted “interrogation” is relevant, cogent evidence.

Making it clear that she agrees with Bartlett and Johnson Smith’s argument that they “do not question any individual’s constitutional right of association”, the IC chairman contended that any question about the acting DCP’s decision-making, and/or suitability for filling that appointment must, therefore, be considered with that right in mind.

According to Lawrence-Beswick, any decision made by the commission should be open to be questioned by the public, including political parties, as to the manner in, and the basis on which the decision was made.

She said a complete answer should be provided as far as the Integrity Commission Act allows.

However, the IC chairman reminded the senior lawmakers that it was they and their colleagues who placed certain restrictions on what can lawfully be revealed by the commission, stating at Section 56 of the Integrity Commission Act that a person concerned in the administration of this Act “shall regard and deal with as secret and confidential, all information, statutory declarations, government contracts, prescribed licences and all other matters relating to any matter before the commission”.

Clause 56 and Section 53 are commonly referred to as the ‘gag clauses’. Despite a raft of recommendations by civil society groups and the IC for an amendment to the gag clausees, parliamentarians have resisted the call, saying their reputations could be sullied.

Lawrence-Beswick also reasoned that the IC is mindful that its decisions are open to scrutiny and, therefore, operates under the policy that any conflicts of interest are declared and, where they exist, the employee recuses himself.

Another basis for the senior lawmakers concern about Lawrence’s appointment to the post rests on what they describe as “public record” that “in late 2024, Dr Campbell used a political platform to make particular comments about a case which, it subsequently came to public attention, was being considered for pursuit by the Integrity Commission.”

“No doubt you will readily understand that your description above lacks sufficient details to allow me to determine of what you speak,” said the IC chairman.

The IC chairman also noted Johnson Smith’s and Bartlett’s concerns arising from “media reports which suggest that the contract of former Director of Corruption Prosecution (Keisha Prince-Kameka) was not renewed in the circumstance where she ‘came under pressure’ to not seek renewal of her contract due to a lawful decision she made”.

Lawrence-Beswick said the government leaders have not made reference to the particular decision that had triggered their concern.

The IC signalled that the questions for which the parliamentarians want the commission to interrogate are specified as being whether the former corruption prosecution director, in fact, came under pressure due to her lawful decision and where did that pressure come from. They are also seeking to determine the extent to which that alleged pressure may have contributed to her not seeking renewal in the post, despite her being widely known to be of excellent repute in the conduct of her profession to date.

The IC chairman noted that “it is clear that the answers to these require the input of the former corruption prosecution director herself, whose five-year statutory term of office with the commission has already ended”.

Lawrence-Beswick said it has not been brought to her attention any complaint, or even comment, made by her, either to the commission or to any other entity, concerning the questions Bartlett and Johnson Smith have asked to be interrogated.

editorial@gleanerjm.com