IC denies access to Holness forensic report, cites court case and gag clause
Published:Thursday | July 10, 2025 | 7:24 PM
The Integrity Commission has refused a request under the Access to Information (ATI) Act for the full forensic accounting report on Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ finances as well as several internal records. It cited legal restrictions tied to a lawsuit Holness has brought against the commission, as well as a sweeping gag clause under the Integrity Commission Act.
In a written response dated July 10 to The Gleaner’s ATI request submitted on July 7, the commission said it could not disclose the forensic report, stating that the matter is sub judice, or under judicial consideration.
“The matter is sub judice as it falls within the subject of proceedings before the court and therefore the commission is unable to comment on same,” it said.
The full report had been requested following the Integrity Commission’s investigation report tabled in Parliament in September 2024, which revealed that an international forensic examiner was engaged in the probe of Holness’ income and assets for 2019–2022. The 2021 filing triggered the probe.
The director of investigations said the examiner was to determine, among other things, "the nature and extent of the interplay between Holness and three connected companies, namely, Imperium Investments Holdings Limited, Estatebridge Development Company Limited, and Positive Media Solution Limited".
Concerning the other items requested under the Gleaner ATI—minutes of the Commission’s board meetings, subcommittee meetings, and internal audit reports from 2018 to 2025, the IC pointed to Section 56 of the Integrity Commission Act, which mandates strict confidentiality.
“The IC is unable to provide the requested information as it is constrained by Section 56 of the Integrity Commission Act, which mandates that the Commission is to keep such matters secret and confidential,” the agency wrote.
Section 56, one of two main secrecy clauses in the IC's law, deals with the confidentiality of information handled by the commission. It mandates that all information, declarations, government contracts, prescribed licences, and other related matters be treated as secret and confidential by individuals involved with the commission's administration. The obligation continues even after a person leaves the Commission.
The commission’s use of the secrecy clause is not new. Both the commission and some civil society groups have argued that it should be varied as its current form undermines transparency.
In an ongoing parliamentary review of the legislation, lawmakers appear set to maintain the provision, with some accommodation for disclosing details of state contracts.
Some lawmakers have also demanded more specialised audits of the anti-corruption agency, citing its recent budgetary allocation of almost $2 billion. There are also proposals that some critics say would weaken the commission's powers.
In its annual report for 2024-2025, released last month, the commission noted that its investigation division closed nine cases. One of those cases involved Holness, but the document did not state what the matter was about. It said that the matter was referred to the division on April 5 and closed on July 19.
The commission said the average time taken to complete those nine cases was 518 days. The Holness case took 338 days.
In the controversial 171-page investigation report, Director of Investigation Kevon Stephenson said he could not conclude on the question of illicit enrichment, highlighted unexplained financial discrepancies in Holness’ 2021 income filings, and raised questions about tax compliance and transactions of over $470 million involving connected companies.
Stephenson noted in the published report that the international forensic accountant took six months to review bank transactions linked to Holness and the companies.
In a special report, the commission said it could not certify Holness' 2021 filings and referred the matter to the Financial Investigations Division.
Holness has rejected the findings and, in September 2024, filed a wide-ranging judicial review claim against the commission, Stephenson, and Director of Information and Complaints, Craig Beresford. He contends that the investigation was unfair.
Holness is also seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the section of the Corruption Prevention Act, which deals with illicit enrichment. He is also challenging the Integrity Commission Act, which was approved by Parliament in 2017.
The judicial review case is scheduled to be heard over 10 days starting October 13 by a three-judge panel.
The matter was listed for pre-trial review in the Supreme Court on Thursday.
However, the judge is reportedly hearing an application by the commission to strike out aspects of Holness' amended claim. Holness' legal team is also seeking to have aspects of an affidavit filed by Beresford struck out.
Earlier this year, Holness' business partner, Norman Brown, withdrew his court challenge against sections of the report that questioned his company’s tax status and flagged potential conflicts of interest over his chairmanship of two state agencies reporting to Holness.
The court allowed Brown to challenge the tax-related findings but dismissed his conflict-of-interest claim. Brown said he withdrew to limit reputational harm amid what he called unfair media narratives.
Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, 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.