‘We intend to fight this’

State Minister for Finance and the Public Service Zavia Mayne has filed a lawsuit against the Integrity Commission (IC), asking the court to quash the ruling of the director of corruption prosecution that he should be charged for breaching Section 43(1)(6) of the Integrity Commission Act.

With three senior directors and the IC named as respondents, Mayne also wants the court to rescind the July 14, 2025 investigation report tabled last week in Parliament.

Attorney-at-law Nigel Jones, who is representing Mayne, toldThe Gleanerlast evening that his client had been dealt a “severe injustice” in relation to how the matter has been handled.

“I would want to imagine that, based on what we have articulated and how we have set out our position, they will get the opportunity to see the concerns that we have and that good sense will prevail, but no matter what happens we intend to fight this,” he declared.

In his application for leave for judicial review, Mayne wants the court to declare that the investigation, findings, conclusions and/or recommendations made by the respondents were done in breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The government lawmaker has asked the court to award damages for breach of privacy, including stigma damages; damages for negligent investigation; aggravated damages; vindicatory damages and costs.

Grounds for judicial review cited by Mayne also include the respondents’ failure to observe the statutory scheme of the IC Act as regards their respective functions and the failure by the IC to afford him an opportunity to be heard, particularly in the context of several requests for meetings.

The state minister is also accusing the anti-corruption body of breaching his constitutional rights by disclosing the contents or subject matter of its investigation.

According to Mayne, the “fact of its alleged referral or intended referral of the report to the director of corruption prosecution, the second and fourth respondents breached the applicant’s reasonable expectation of privacy and his rights to privacy” as contained in the Charter of Fundamentals Rights and Freedoms and the IC Act. The second respondent is the director of investigations, Kevon Stephenson, and the fourth respondent is the IC.

Citing “ultra viresand illegality”, Mayne said the tabling of the report was intended to embarrass and cause harm to him and as such, was made in bad faith to prejudice and harm him, given that the entire scheme of the IC Act is to ensure confidentiality and secure fairness to those who are being legitimately investigated.

In an IC report tabled in Parliament on December 2, the anti-corruption body recommended that Mayne be charged for breaching Section 43(1)(b) of the IC Act.

The IC’s director of corruption prosecution, Roneiph Lawrence, acting on a recommendation from Stephenson, ruled that Mayne should be charged for failing, without reasonable cause, to provide information requested by the director of information and complaints (DoIC).

The IC had launched a probe to determine whether Mayne – an attorney-at-law and state minister in the Ministry of Finance – failed to submit information required to support his statutory declarations covering 2018 to 2022. Under the IC Act, public officials must supply additional information requested by the DoIC for verification of their declarations.

If convicted in the parish court, Mayne could face a fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to six months. The court may also order him to comply with the outstanding requirements.

According to the investigation, Mayne did not provide the DoIC with gross income earned from rental properties for 2021 and 2022 or documentation supporting the source of those earnings.

The IC noted that his 2021 statutory declaration listed $6 million from rental properties, but no such income appeared in his 2022 declaration.

“Further checks of his statutory declaration for 2022 revealed that Mr Mayne had disposed of a property at Shop No. 16 Springs Plaza for $120 million. No supporting document was provided for the disposal of this property,” the IC stated.