Editorial | Table Hayles’ report quickly

It is a pity that it took Ian Hayles half a decade, and a judge’s emphatic renunciation of his claims, to end his efforts at preventing scrutiny of his actions as a public official while he served as a government minister.

As slow as this decision was in coming, it is nonetheless good for transparency. Yet, there is a paradox in Mr Hayles’ resolution not to appeal the court’s decision, denying him a judicial review aimed at nullifying the findings of the former contractor general, and the fact that he fought so hard and long to prevent the tabling of his report in Parliament.

“There is no sense in appealing it (the judgment) because there is nothing in the report,” he told this newspaper.

The implication of that remark, notwithstanding the document containing what Mr Hayles described as hearsay, is that a discerning public would conclude that the probe and findings against himself, and his wife, Charlotte Alexander-Hayles, were baseless and without merit.

“There is nothing in the report to say that Ian Hayles and his family did anything wrong … . It is an empty report,” the former parliamentarian said.

He did, however, concede, as the court noted, that his wife concluded the greater part of a development without the necessary planning permits, and had paid a penalty.

“There is nothing else in the report which was factual,” he said.

Mr Hayles’ posture insists that Parliament, after a delay of five years, must table the report at the earliest possible opportunity: its first sitting after the Christmas holidays, or the earliest period thereafter, having satisfied itself that Mr Hayles has indeed passed the time for filing an appeal. Not a day later.

TWO KEY FACTORS

Then there is Ian Hayles. His decision not to appeal calls into question the reasons for which he pursued the bid for judicial review in the first place.

Put another way, on the face of it, Mr Hayles no longer, it seems, believes that fundamental principles are at stake. If they ever were, they may have been so thoroughly shattered by Justice Lorna Shelly-Williams’ judgment that it may be perceived that they cannot be credibly remounted.

We have highlighted this matter for two reasons. The first is that Jamaicans have little trust in public officials and the institutions of Government and State.

Indeed, over 70 per cent of adults believe they live in a corrupt, or very corrupt, country. Less than half trust the legislature and politicians. Under 40 per cent trust the police.

People do not arrive at these positions without reason. They are born of experience – sometimes personal. So, any effort to highlight transparency of the working of Government and the behaviour of its officials and agents ought to be welcomed.

Secondly, Ian Hayles is not an ordinary citizen. Although he is not now a member of parliament (MP), he is a vice-president of the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) – an important position of trust. At the time of the incidents investigated by the then Office of the Contractor General (OCG) – whose functions were subsumed by the Integrity Commission – he was a minister of state in the Ministry of Water, Land and the Environment.

The stripped-down background to this matter is that members of Mr Hayles’ family, including his wife, formed a company – Just One Services Ltd – that constructed commercial properties on two parcels of land in the parish of Hanover, where Mr Hayles was an MP. In one of the cases, the company, of which Mr Hayles was neither a director nor shareholder, built 20 shops, 11 of which were completed without the requisite permits from the parish council.

Regarding the second bit of property, where separate development took place, a portion of the land, purchased from presumed private owners, was deemed to be public property. There was apparently a faltering attempt between the municipal government and Just One to rectify the problem through some form of exchange.

‘ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES’

Also gleaned from Justice Shelly-Williams’ ruling, there were also allegations of forged land survey documents; the presence of Mr Hayles’ name on a survey document, although he was ostensibly not part of Just One Services; and claims that Mr Hayles urged municipal officials, as a favour, to “stamp” permits for one of the developments.

In 2017, when the report completed by the former CG, Dirk Harrison, was sent to Parliament by the Integrity Commission, Mr Hayles gained an injunction to prevent its tabling, pending the outcome of a judicial review of whether the OCG had the authority to conduct the probe and if, as Mr Hayles contended, its findings were irrational. It was to determine if the court had the power to order a stay against the Speaker of the House and the president of the Senate.

However, judicial reviews first need to have the permission of the court to move forward – a sort of pre-hearing of the issues to determine whether they merited a deeper hearing by a bench of three judges.

“The applicants have not satisfied the court that they have an arguable ground for judicial review with a reasonable prospect for success,” the judge ruled.

A noteworthy aspect of the judge’s ruling, which will hopefully stir discussion, was that the Hayleses had “alternative remedies in the form of a claim for damages for defamation of character”, given Section 23(3) of the Contractor General Act, which said, “For the purposes of the Defamation Act, any report made by a Contractor-General under this Act and any fair and accurate comment thereon shall be deemed to be privileged.”