Clerk sought guidance on alleged blackmail of Senate president; officer rejects claim

Newly obtained correspondence shows the Clerk to the Houses of Parliament sought disciplinary guidance regarding a former officer’s alleged misconduct and alleged attempt to blackmail Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson.

Attorney-at-Law Anthony Williams, who represents the public officer, on Friday rejected the allegations, describing his client as a “scapegoat”.

Tavares-Finson has declined to comment.

The officer was interdicted, or suspended, from duty on half salary with effect from May 1, after her secondment at the Houses of Parliament (HoP) ended in March.

However, the Public Service Commission (PSC) has since directed that the officer be returned to her substantive post, which is elsewhere in the public service, and paid the portion of salary withheld during the interdiction period.

The decision, communicated by the Office of the Services Commissions (OSC) on December 29, followed what it said was “careful consideration of all the evidence presented” at a December 17 meeting of the PSC. It said the decision was subsequently approved by the governor general and conveyed to the relevant permanent secretary.

The officer joined Parliament in August 2024 in a junior role and was promoted to a senior position in November. The officer’s tenure at Gordon House ended on March 28, after which the officer returned to her substantive post. The officer was formally advised in April of her interdiction.

In correspondence seen by The Gleaner, the OSC said the interdiction was effected “based on reports made by the Clerk to the Houses of Parliament, for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted”, but it did not specify the allegations relied on in reaching its decision. The officer’s attorney has also said the allegations were never disclosed to the officer.

Asked about the interdiction on December 18, the clerk declined to comment, noting confidentiality laws and internal processes.

However, The Gleaner has since obtained an email dated March 31 in which the clerk, Colleen Lowe, sought “expert guidance” from the OSC on whether disciplinary action could still be pursued against the officer after she had reverted to her substantive post.

‘INCREASINGLY PROBLEMATIC’ CONDUCT

In that email, Lowe alleged that the officer’s conduct during her assignment at Parliament was “increasingly problematic”, citing interpersonal conflicts and repeated refusals to process payments for goods and services already received by Parliament. Lowe said the refusals persisted despite reminders and escalated communications.

The clerk further alleged that on March 28 the officer attempted to “blackmail” the President of the Senate by conveying “an indirect message” to the president demanding Lowe’s removal, assistance in securing alternative employment at an equivalent salary level, or she would expose alleged corruption linked to payment instructions. Lowe said documentation supporting this allegation was attached to her email.

Lowe also claimed that after the officer was asked to return a government-issued mobile phone, emails were discovered between the officer and a Gleaner journalist containing what the clerk described as “sensitive and potentially damaging content”.

In the email, Lowe asked whether the Houses of Parliament could still pursue disciplinary action; what steps should be taken to address potential breaches; and how to mitigate risks arising from the alleged conduct.

Those enquiries reportedly followed expressions of concern from a senior civil servant in another government body over the alleged blackmail, but uncertainty about the applicable disciplinary process.

Williams, the officer’s attorney, said those claims were never provided to his client, whom he said is being wrongly accused as a “scapegoat”. According to him, the officer has been “vindicated” by the PSC’s ruling.

“My client denies the allegation of attempted blackmail, full stop,” Williams said, before questioning the claims of poor performance.

“How can she poorly perform her job when this same clerk promoted her from a junior position to a senior position ... And if that was the case, why did she not make those allegations in writing to my client? They were not in writing, and they were not told to my client.”

Williams has argued that the interdiction followed his client’s refusal to carry out certain instructions. He also said the non-disclosure of the reasons raised questions about the application of the principles of natural justice.

“When a public body interdicts an employee, it is trite law that the person must be told the nature of the allegations,” he said on Friday. “You cannot simply say there is an investigation without saying investigation into what.”

In a previous interview, Williams said there was a “civil war” among the staff at HoP and some witnesses who initially supported the complaints later withdrew their statements.

In a March 7 email, the officer advised the clerk of “ongoing challenges” with her team. The clerk told the officer to seek assistance from an internal lawyer to explore “practical solutions” that are fair and align with internal policies.

The reinstatement of the officer comes amid heightened scrutiny of procurement practices at Parliament.

A special audit by the Auditor General’s Department (AuGD) identified breaches in the $3.2-million procurement of 16 air-conditioning units and governance failings linked to a $24-million renovation of the Members’ Lounge.

CONCERNS RAISED

Internal correspondence obtained by The Gleaner shows that the officer raised concerns in March about processing payments for the air-conditioning units without confirmed approvals or funding. Despite those objections, a March 26 email from the clerk instructed that the payments be processed immediately, warning that failure to comply “will be considered as insubordination”.

The AuGD later concluded that the air-conditioning procurement did not follow required procedures and was not included in Parliament’s procurement plan or capital budget.

The clerk has declined to comment, citing restrictions under various laws. She is expected to discuss the AuGD’s report before Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee later this month.

House Speaker Juliet Holness has defended Lowe’s leadership, saying efforts to strengthen accountability at Parliament have generated “accusations and spite” from some staff.

In an unrelated matter, the Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a 28-day injunction blocking the clerk’s dismissal of Tiffany Stewart as senior legislative counsel.

On December 19, the clerk advised Stewart that her temporary employment would be terminated on December 31. Lowe cited the 1961 Public Service Regulations, which she stated, among other things, allow authorised officers to dismiss temporary workers without giving any reason.

“For the avoidance of doubt, this termination is administrative in nature, arising solely from the cessation of your temporary employment and does not constitute disciplinary action,” the clerk said.

However, Stewart is alleging that Lowe acted “unlawfully” by invoking administrative powers to dismiss her when “the decision to terminate was substantively based on allegations of poor performance and/or misconduct”. Stewart said using poor performance as the basis for dismissal would trigger an enquiry so she could give her side.

The dispute involves an October 2 performance appraisal in which the clerk expressed serious concerns regarding Stewart’s professional conduct and output. Stewart, who was hired on March 31 and placed on a six-month probation that was extended twice, alleges that she is being victimised. She has refused to sign the report.

The court also granted Stewart permission to seek judicial review of the clerk’s December 19 decision. The first hearing is set for March 3.

The clerk’s submissions to the court were not immediately available but Stewart’s attorney, King’s Counsel Douglas Leys said the clerk’s legal team made “very spirited arguments opposing the application”. Stewart’s judicial review claim must be filed within 28 days of the December 31 order, after which the clerk will file her response.

editorial@gleanerjm.com