Editorial | The Integrity Commission’s recommendations

With Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert having pleaded guilty and fined J$900,000 for false reporting in her integrity filings, the question arises as to whether the Government will seek to claw back the duty concession it waived, and any travel allowances she may have received, on the vehicle that was at the centre of her prosecution.

Which was what the Integrity Commission (IC) recommended in its September 2023 investigative report that led to Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert’s evacuation of the Speaker’s chair and her, ultimately, short-lived departure from Parliament.

At the same time, the IC should provide in its next annual report to Parliament, or in a special filing to the legislature, an analysis of all the recommendations it has made since its inception to government ministries, agencies, and departments for the improvement of their systems of accountability and which of these recommendations have been implemented. Such a report would be entirely within the commission’s mandate, which includes examining “the practices and procedures of public bodies and make recommendations in relation to their revision of those practices, which in the opinion of the commission may reduce the likelihood or occurrences of acts of corruption”.

Recommendations by the commission’s director of investigation in his reports on specific complaints or accusations of corruption, or other acts that breach the rules, fall within this milieu.

ACCESSED GOVERNMENT SCHEME

Regarding the Dalrymple-Philibert matter, in 2015, as a member of parliament (MP), she accessed the Government’s scheme that, every five years, allows public servants a 20 per cent duty concession on the cost of new motor vehicles they purchase. That concession is non-transferable, and the rules prohibit the sale of the vehicle in under three years lest the recipient be required to pay back tariff forfeited by the Government.

Further, a public servant who receives the duty rebate is entitled to a reimbursement for travel only on the vehicle for which he received the concession.

According to the Integrity Commission’s report of Ms Dalrymple Philibert’s case, in 2015 she applied for, and received the concession on a Mercedes-Benz vehicle, whose full-duty list price was J$8.1 million. But after all the concessions, the MP was able to buy the car for J$6 million.

However, the car was actually paid for by the partner of Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert’s sister and the father of her nephew, using a loan guaranteed by the MP.

It appeared that the vehicle was in the control of the former Speaker’s sister and her family although it was insured in Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert’s name. However, in her assets, income, and liabilities filings for the period from December 2015 to 2021, when the vehicle was sold, Ms Dalrymple-Philibert did not list her ownership of the car, a Mercedes-Benz GLA 250.

When, in 2022, the Integrity Commission, in reviewing her filing for 2020, asked Ms Dalrymple-Philibert about her failure to list the car as an asset, she responded, according to the IC: “... I do not own said motor vehicle and hereby request that the commission corrects this error … .”

Later on, in the midst of the commission’s investigation, Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert, by then the Speaker of the House, said that she had not recalled her ownership and was reminded only after revisiting relevant documents pertaining to the vehicle, including checking with Parliament about her use of the duty-concession scheme. She also had not benefited from the sale of the vehicle, she said.

CHARGED ON SEVERAL COUNTS

However, the IC’s director of prosecution concluded that she be charged on several counts for knowingly making a false statement on her integrity filings, for which she could have been fined up to J$2 million or sent to jail for two years.

Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert’s lawyer has suggested that given his client’s updating the record to acknowledge her ownership of the vehicle, she should have been spared a court appearance.

However, “the act itself did not have a provision which clearly allowed the commission itself discretion to give Mrs Dalrymple-Philibert the benefit of correcting the record and avoiding the necessity of going through to the court”, the lawyer, Peter Champagnie, noted. He has suggested that Parliament amend the provision.

That suggestion, on its face, would mean that someone accused of knowingly making a false statement, but later concedes an error, even in the midst of an investigation, and after an initial denial, should be afforded the same treatment as a person who “without reasonable cause fails to submit a statutory declaration” or “fails to provide any information”.

In the latter circumstances, the individuals can be offered the opportunity to discharge the liability with a fixed penalty of J$250,000.

The idea is worthy of debate, taking into account the nuanced differences between the two situations, and the mischief either provision seeks to cure.

On the question of the duty concession, the IC argued that the former Speaker breached the Customs Act and should be asked to pay back J$1.52 million.

It claimed, too, that she was paid travel allowance for a vehicle other than the Mercedes-Benz GLA 250, which the Treasury should also recoup.

It also recommended that Parliament’s administrators improve their systems for paying such reimbursements, which should be among the recommendations analysed for the status of their implementation.