Holness fights to strike ‘scandalous’ info from IC official’s affidavit

Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness is expected to learn on Thursday whether the Supreme Court will grant his request to strike out “scandalous” sections of an official’s affidavit in his lawsuit against the Integrity Commission (IC).

Justice Althea Jarrett will rule on an application filed by Holness and three affiliated entities – Imperium Holdings Limited, Positive Media Solutions, and Positive Jamaica Foundation – seeking to strike out parts of a 108-page affidavit submitted in March by Craig Beresford, the IC’s director of information and complaints.

The application, filed on June 11, targets at least 12 paragraphs in Beresford’s affidavit that Holness claims are “hearsay, scandalous and irrelevant”. In an affidavit of his own, Holness argued that paragraphs 11 to 15 and accompanying exhibits are “an abuse of process, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious”, with prejudicial value outweighing any probative worth.

The IC opposes the application, saying the contested paragraphs respond to claims Holness made in his own affidavit. These paragraphs and exhibits reportedly involve internal IC assessments of Holness’ finances, investments, and income declarations dating back to 1998.

The dispute is part of a broader legal battle. In September 2024, Holness and the three entities filed a sweeping judicial review claim against Beresford, Director of Investigations Kevon Stephenson, and the IC. The claim challenges the fairness of the IC’s investigation into Holness’ finances. Stephenson had raised concerns over unexplained discrepancies in Holness’ 2021 filings and questions regarding tax compliance and transactions exceeding $470 million involving companies linked to him. Holness has denied any wrongdoing.

COURT ORDER

In December, the Supreme Court granted permission for Holness to proceed with his judicial review claim, which also challenges the constitutionality of the Integrity Commission Act and the illicit enrichment provision of the Corruption Prevention Act. The case is set for hearing in October.

Meanwhile, the court has also heard arguments from the Attorney General’s Chambers, which unsuccessfully sought to have constitutional issues in the case heard separately and first. Justice Jarrett ruled that it would be better for the court to consider the full scope of Holness’ claim together.

Holness’ legal team has also filed motions for additional disclosures from the IC, alleging that some previously provided documents “incomplete or were otherwise altered or redacted without any lawful justification”. The contested materials include a forensic accountant’s report, the examiner’s contract, and a non-disclosure agreement. While the report has since been provided, Holness’ attorneys argue that redactions still hinder their ability to prepare.

An affidavit from attorney Vasheney Headlam of the firm Henlin Gibson Henlin supported that disclosure request, stating that his team identified deficiencies in documents shared in May. The IC’s legal team made additional disclosures on June 11, the same day Holness filed his strike-out application.

The defendants responded on July 7, rejecting claims of irrelevance or hearsay. They maintained that Beresford’s affidavit rebutted Holness’ own statements and that the content fell within Beresford’s personal knowledge. They further argued the redacted information was unrelated to Holness’ case, involved third parties, and its disclosure could breach confidentiality provisions of the Integrity Commission Act.

Evian Ortiz, acting legal counsel at the IC, stated in a separate affidavit that redacted information covered unrelated investigations and sensitive matters involving third parties, and releasing it would be a criminal offence under Section 56(3) of the act.

The IC has also pushed back against certain language in Holness’ amended fixed date claim form, particularly his use of the word “purported” to describe Beresford’s examination of his 2022 and 2023 declarations. They argue that this wording seeks to revive a previously rejected application for judicial review, constituting an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court had earlier denied Holness’ request to compel Beresford to examine those declarations.

editorial@gleanerjm.com