Gordon Robinson | Cover up by legislation?
Published:Sunday | February 15, 2026 | 12:59 PM
The latest affront to Constitutional governance was conducted in the Senate on Friday February 6 when a proposed Bill to amend the Financial Investigation Division Act (FIDA) was passed into law.
The primary value of this Bill to Government was established by its passage in the House on January 20 and the Senate seventeen days later. It didn’t quite beat the record set by that all-important Act extending D.P.P.’s tenure but it raced past the time taken by unimportant Legislation like the Disabilities Act and the new Road Traffic Act.
So we know Government considers this urgent!
According to J.I.S., when the Bill was debated in the House, Finance Minister Fayval Williams described FIDA as seeking to incorporate functions necessary to facilitate local financial crime investigations and cooperation with other countries.
She said: “[FID’s] responsibilities include investigations, collection of information and maintenance of intelligence database, management of seized, restrained and forfeited properties, and collaboration with local and foreign law-enforcement agencies [my emphasis].”
Long story short, FID has whole heapa suss ’bout persons being investigated. Minister also told us FID was a member of the Egmont Group which “facilitates international collaboration and cooperation between financial intelligence units (FIUs) to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation financing and predicate offences.”
So, FID’s information sharing purpose is “collaboration” in the fight against international crime. Allrighty then!
She said the Egmont Group’s goal includes fostering “ better and secure communication among financial intelligence units through the application of technology; increased coordination and support among the operational divisions of member FIUs; promoting the operational autonomy of FIUs [again, my emphasis]; among other issues relating to international terrorism and money-laundering.”
She emphasised “As you may be aware, in 2017, the Financial Action Task Force/Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, approved the Mutual Evaluation Report (MER) for which Jamaica was rated partially compliant, for recommendation 40, which deals with international cooperation.
“A low MER rating serves as a trigger for a close review by the Egmont Group. The Egmont Group identified areas of deficiency in [FIDA] which they interpreted as the division not being operationally independent and autonomous [Again, my emphasis] . This Bill seeks to address the issues relating to independence [you guessed it; it’s me again Jah!] and to ensure that FID complies with the Financial Action Task Force standards and principles of Egmont, thus maintaining membership.”
So, proving she could easily be a lawyer, Fayval used a hundred words where ten would do. Boiled down to gravy, our international partners are dissatisfied with FID’s level of independence and want it to be able to share information PRIVATELY without any unwanted snooping by Government.
That’s what she said!
In the Senate, Government Business Leader Kamina Johnson-Smith downplayed the independence thingy; shuffled the cards; and introduced other issues:
“This Bill is an important amendment… which seeks to ensure that FID exchanges information with its regulatory and investigative counterparts in an independent manner; that it is empowered so to do, such that it can carry out investigations while at the same time, ensuring that proper protocols and accountability remain in place for disclosures and treatment of such information.”
So what, outside of the Data Protection Act, are those “proper protocols”?
To be able to wade through Kamina’s gobbledygook, you must realise the devil is in the details. The Bill, which is about to become an Act of Parliament, permits FID to disseminate information once it’s in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica AND “Government Policy”.
Why have those latter two words been snuck into the Act? I listened keenly to a debate between my learned friends Sherene Golding-Campbell and Donna Scott-Mottley on The Morning Agenda last Monday where both established clearly why Senators are selected instead of elected. Not only did both exhibit a high level of intellect but also, far more importantly, a refreshing focus on issues; on responding to issues raised by each; and a reluctance to obfuscate.
Unfortunately neither is ever likely to be elected to Gordon House any time soon with THAT attitude which only goes to prove my insistence that Government must be separated from Parliament if Jamaica is to show any real progress.
Anyway I digress.
Sherene insisted that Government policy was always evolving and not static so FID should abide by current policy. Donna maintained Government Policy was already enshrined in law so need not be separately inserted into this new enactment. She felt it was sufficient for FID to be restrained by the Constitution and laws of Jamaica. Sherene reminded Donna that not every Government Policy found its way into a law.
Donna came closest to my perspective and Sherene’s principle of an evolving Government policy is correct but neither hit the nail squarely on the head. Oh, and one tiny but of debating advice to both: nuh badda wid di analogy dem. I’m not a fan of debate by analogies which, by definition, are never strictly relevant. In any event neither analogy addressed the fundamental issue of balancing institutional independence with international obligations.
And before I get accused of using analogy almost every Tuesday, like Shaggy, I deny, deny, deny! On Tuesdays I use satire which is an entirely different animal. Also, on Tuesdays’ I don’t debate, I often explain my views satirically.
This is how the infamous Amendment Bill was drafted:
“Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) authorises a disclosure by the Chief Technical Director unless –
(ii) Government policy”
“The Minister may, after consultation with the Chief Technical Director give to the Division such directions of a general character as to the policy to be followed in the exercise of its functions as appears to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest and the Division shall give effect to the directions.”
The giving of policy directions “of a general character” and “necessary in the public interest” is ALREADY in FIDA just as it appears in one form or another in every Act setting up EVERY Statutory Body. So what’s this extra reference? Is a Minister now allowed to give SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS regarding SPECIFIC INDIVIDIALS’ information especially if that information arises from ongoing investigation? Can a Minister call FID Chief Technical Director and direct specifically, for example, that no information about any cabinet member can be shared?
If that should happen would a rationale be required? Or would it be an instruction based on “Government Policy” that FID Chief must obey? What’s the difference between “policy” in section 7 and “Government policy” in the now amended section 12?
It’s equally unnecessary to include in the Amendment that FID must act in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of Jamaica. Who said any individual or institution may act otherwise? So it seems obvious that the entire provision is included to cover up the sly insertion of “Government policy”. That conclusion is reinforced by the words’ stand alone juxtaposition while the Constitution and Laws of Jamaica must huddle together.
The Opposition is 100 per cent correct to be suspicious as to political intent.
How on God’s green earth does this Bill strengthen “independence” for FID if FID must take instructions from Ministers on specific issues of information sharing once it’s tagged with a “Government policy” label? Did Egmont Group approve this draft? It’s obvious the amendment is done on its instruction. Has Government found itself between a rock and a hard place whereby international law enforcement agencies are insisting it complies with Egmont Group membership rules but it fears consequences to Party high-ups or donors if information regarding certain investigations is shared?
Maybe visas could be revoked. Or, horror of horrors, extradition requests might appear. This sort of interference with Jamaican affairs must be pre-empted. After all, constitutional rights don’t begin at Liguanea. They have been believed to begin at Belmont Road or Jamaica House.
Don’t believe me? Ask any one of Messrs Manatt, Phelps or Phillips....
Peace and Love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com