AG's chambers said practice of tabling IC reports first 'not inconsistent' with rules

House Speaker Juliet Holness ended the practice of tabling all Integrity Commission reports upon submission although the Attorney General's Chambers said such a treatment was not inconsistent with the law or parliamentary rules.

Tabling is the process by which reports submitted to Parliament are made public.

On Tuesday, Holness implemented a new rule which mandates that special and annual reports of the commission will go to its oversight committee for deliberations first and then tabled later on, with the committee's own report. 

Investigation reports will be tabled "as soon as possible" after submission to Parliament, she said. 

The Opposition People's National Party has argued that the new rule is an attempt to delay reports from the country's main anti-corruption agency. 

Full Text | How Parliament will treat Integrity Commission special reports

On Friday, Gordon House shared with lawmakers, two opinions from its chief legal advisor Lee-Andria Wilson on the question of whether reports from the Integrity Commission are to be submitted to the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee before or after tabling in Parliament. 

Wilson said the Integrity Commission Act and the Standing Orders, the rules that govern the Houses of Parliament, "are silent" on the issues and reports "may be" submitted to the committee "either before or after tabling in Parliament". 

"The power to make this determination rests in the Speaker and the House as a whole body, and this power may be utilised to set out parliamentary rules and procedures of the House in relation to these reports. A determination made by the Speaker would set a precedence for the management of said reports," she said in a memorandum to the clerk dated November 8, 2023. 

She said for a long term solution, the House of Representatives may consider amending its rules to deal with the issue. 

Wilson's position is based on the Attorney General's Chambers' opinion that was sought in July by then Speaker Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert. The full opinion has not been released.

In a July 4 letter, Dalrymple-Philibert noted that the practice in Parliament was for the tabling of Integrity Commission reports before the oversight committee could consider and report on its findings to Parliament. 

While awaiting the opinion of the Attorney General's Chambers, the then speaker directed that all reports submitted to Parliament from the Integrity Commission were to be submitted to the chairman of the oversight committee. 

The Attorney General's Chambers responded on July 10. 

According to Wilson, the chambers said the current practice to table and circulate Integrity Commission reports before submitting them to the committee "is not inconsistent with Section 36 of the Integrity Commission Act or Standing Order 73D(e). 

"There is nothing in Section 36 of the Act or Standing Order 73D(e) that provides for the sequence of events that is, when the report should be tabled, circulated and submitted to the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee," Wilson quoted from the response. 

The former speaker sought further clarity regarding the sequence of events and the Attorney General Chambers' responded by restating its opinion provided on July 10.

Wilson said the chambers said the House is expected to follow its usual procedures and that, subject to the rules and other laws, the House has overarching control over the procedures. 

Opposition Leader Mark Golding said Tuesday that Speaker Holness' decision to send Integrity Commission special and annual reports to the oversight committee is "going down the wrong track" that "delays" the release of anti-corruption reports. 

He said there could be a situation where a matter of vital public interest is sent to Parliament and, under her new rule, is then sent to a committee without the public's knowledge. And he said it would be up to the committee, made of a majority government members, to set the timeframe to deal with the issue.  

"That's a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding," he said. 

However, Holness insisted that she was doing the right thing. "If the intention of the Parliament and the legislators at the time was to have all reports tabled immediately, it would have said that," she said of the Integrity Commission Act. 

"When the legislation are passed, it cannot be that we allow persons to think that in obeying the laws, we are doing the wrong thing. We cannot cherry pick which laws we are obey," Holness said. 

Section 73D(e) of the Standing Orders said the oversight committee "shall have the duty of... convening and considering a report submitted to Parliament under section 36 of the Integrity Commission Act, within thirty days of the submission of the report".

Committee meetings are usually public and so too are documents presented.

Holness was elected speaker on September 23, following the resignation of Dalrymple-Philibert over an Integrity Commission ruling that recommended corruption-related charges against her.  

Dalrymple-Philibert's July request for guidance on how to treat with Integrity Commission reports came amid blistering attacks on the commission by members of the Holness administration.

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck even declared in June that the anti-corruption body has no "integrity". 

The commission started facing heat after its controversial handling of a report involving Prime Minister Andrew Holness in February. 

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.