JAMP flags ‘glaring inconsistency’ in Wheatley Case

There is a “glaring inconsistency” in how Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness has so far handled the legal troubles facing de facto Science, Technology and Special Projects Minister Dr Andrew Wheatley, when compared with previous alleged improprieties by members of his executive, one pro-accountability group has charged.

The Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP) noted in a statement on Monday that Wheatley remains in the Cabinet, and questioned Holness’ decision not to remove him pending the outcome of impending criminal charges.

By comparison, the group pointed out that Wheatley had tendered his resignation from the Cabinet in 2018 amid allegations of corruption at two entities that fell under his portfolio, and that it was accepted by Holness in circumstances where there was no investigation report or criminal charges.

Similarly, JAMP cited the prime minister’s decision in 2020 to strip former Cabinet minister JC Hutchinson of responsibility for the agriculture sector amid allegations of impropriety in a land deal, despite no investigation report or charges.

In an 89-page investigation report tabled in Parliament last Wednesday, the Integrity Commission (IC), Jamaica’s main anti-corruption body, ruled that Wheatley, the member of parliament for St Catherine South Central, is to be charged for illicit enrichment and other corruption-related crimes.

However, amid calls by the main parliamentary Opposition and civil society groups for Wheatley’s sacking, Holness indicated during a radio interview on Monday that Wheatley “retains my confidence in the work that he has been doing”.

JAMP described the findings and recommendations of the IC as “among the most serious to have emerged to date from Jamaica’s integrity and anti-corruption framework”.

“JAMP believes that the seriousness of the referral for charges for illicit enrichment, alleged omissions from statutory declarations and findings relating to failures to provide information requested by the Integrity Commission…require an immediate and credible response that, at the very least, should demonstrate some standard that is consistent,” JAMP said.

The pro-accountability group also questioned what, if anything, Holness knew of the IC investigation involving Wheatley before appointing him to the Cabinet.

“Good governance requires more than technical competence. It also must engender trust and set a high bar for transparency.”

JAMP asserted that the investigation report related to Wheatley has exposed “significant weaknesses” in the country’s governance framework.

It noted, as an example, that the Cabinet minister was under investigation for four years at the time he was appointed last September.

According to JAMP, this raises the question of what standards or requirements exist that are factored into the determination of Cabinet appointments.

“It should be a requirement that for Cabinet appointments a candidate must disclose to the prime minister whether they are the subject of any integrity-related or other investigation,” JAMP suggested.

“The present situation begs for urgent reforms to strengthen vetting.”