News July 19 2026

IC unable to find, charge 7 ex-public officials

Updated 15 hours ago 3 min read

Loading article...

  • Kelly-Ann Murdock, a prosecutor at the Integrity Commission, addressing a press conference last week.

  • Gavin Myers, principal director of the National Integrity Action.

The Integrity Commission (IC) is unable to locate seven former public officials who are facing charges of failing to file statutory declarations for various periods, Jamaica’s principal anti-corruption body has disclosed.
The result is that the cases, which date back more than six years, have been designated “dormant”, the IC revealed in its annual report for the 2025-2026 financial year, which ended on March 31 this year.
“Those matters will remain dormant in the interim until/unless new information is provided as it relates to the whereabouts of these declarants,” the report indicated.
The IC declined to divulge the names of the former officials or the positions they held during a rare press conference at its St Andrew offices last Tuesday.
“I cannot say off the top of my head who these individuals are … . If I was to guess, I would get in trouble, so I don’t want to offer a guess,” said Kelly-Ann Murdock, a prosecutor in the IC’s Corruption Prosecution Division (CPD).
Murdock did not release the names of the former officials after The Sunday Gleaner followed up on the issue.   
Parliamentarians and public officials who earn a minimum of $12 million annually, hold gazetted positions, or are otherwise required to do so by the Integrity Commission (IC), are mandated by law to file annual declarations of their income, assets and liabilities.
The previous threshold for public officials required to file statutory declarations was $3.5 million before it was increased in December 2023 through an order approved by Parliament.
The regime is aimed at preventing public officials from using their positions to enrich themselves.
The commission revealed in the report that during the year under review, its CPD took steps to revive dormant cases by engaging the Intelligence & Witness Management Unit of the Investigation Division to assist in gathering new information to locate declarants.
Several unsuccessful attempts
“A matter becomes dormant following several unsuccessful attempts of effecting service of a summons on a declarant. The dormancy protocol was activated on these matters pursuant to an internally prescribed divisional policy,” the commission explained.
The IC annual report revealed that six of the dormant cases were referred to the CPD in the fourth quarter of the 2020-2021 financial year while two others were forwarded in the third quarter of the 2021-2022 financial year.
One case was removed from the list in the fourth quarter of the last financial year after the former public official was located, placed before the court, and pleaded guilty, the IC disclosed.
“At the time of this report, the CPD did not receive any additional information to assist in the reactivation of the remaining seven matters,” the report said.
However, Dr Gavin Myers, principal director of the anti-corruption lobby group National Integrity Action (NIA), has questioned why the cases of the seven ex-public officials cannot be treated like that of de facto Science, Technology and Special Projects Minister Dr Andrew Wheatley.
The IC disclosed, in an investigation report and indicative ruling tabled in Parliament on June 17, that its CPD had recommended that Wheatley face illicit enrichment and other charges for alleged breaches of Jamaica’s anti-corruption law.
The recommendation was based on the findings of an 89-page investigation report that over an 11-year period, the Cabinet minister had assets that were disproportionate to his lawful earnings by more than $164 million.
“I would love it if in these [dormant] cases a similar approach is taken. So if it is that they have made a recommendation [to lay charges in the dormant cases], I would love for us to know the people the recommendations are related to,” Myers explained.
The NIA head said he understood the concerns about reputational damage if some information were placed in the public space and made it clear that “I am all for protecting people’s reputation”.
“But I am against protecting people’s reputation at the expense of our resources or at the expense of people who have [allegedly] run afoul of the law,” he told The Sunday Gleaner.
livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com