Beresford: Premature court intervention undermines anti-corruption probes

The executive director of the Integrity Commission (IC), Craig Beresford, says the anti-corruption agency is “very concerned” about the growing practice of state entities taking the commission to court to halt its investigations.

In an interview with The Sunday Gleaner, Beresford made it clear that he understands and appreciates the fact that government agencies have a right, should they desire, to seek recourse from the court.

However, he argued that when litigation is used to stop an investigation aimed at uncovering the truth, “it raises a red flag”.

“We are very concerned about that because what that means is that a duly established entity, a commission of Parliament, cannot continue its work because of a court action,” he observed.

Indicating that he was not referencing any particular government agency, Beresford reasoned that after a probe is complete and a report tabled in Parliament, anyone who wishes to challenge the conclusions and findings can always approach the court at that time.

“This is not in any way to reference any particular matter that is before the court. It’s just a principle. We just want to be able to complete our investigation unimpeded and let the chips fall where they may,” he added.

Beresford said when a whistleblower makes a complaint to the IC, the agency has a duty to investigate the matter.

‘ALOW US To Do OUR JOB’

“We have not said anything yet, so as it stands all we would want is for public bodies to allow us to do our job and come to a conclusion.”

According to him, an investigation may ultimately determine that no wrongdoing occurred, but premature court intervention forces the use of taxpayers’ money on legal fees.

“At the end of the day, we would want to be allowed to discharge our mandate. Can you imagine if every complaint we get someone decides to stop it in-between?” he questioned.

Beresford warned that such actions could lead to prolonged legal battles between state entities over probes that have not yet been concluded, further draining public resources.

On December 14, 2025, The Sunday Gleaner reported that the Spectrum Management Authority (SMA) had taken the IC to court to challenge the leagal basis for an investigation, accusing the anti-corruption agency of acting illegally and abusing its powers.

The IC rejected the claims and expressed concern that evidence could be destroyed.

Subsequently, on December 22, the Supreme Court granted the SMA and its managing director, Dr Maria Myers-Hamilton, permission to seek judicial review of two notices related to the IC’s ongoing investigation. The court also issued interim injunctions preventing the commission from continuing the probe using the disputed notices and a witness summons.

However, the court denied the SMA’s request for several additional orders, including the return of items seized during the IC’s investigation.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com