Golding warns of court action to compel Parliament to table FLA report by Integrity Commission

A legal challenge to force the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to table an Integrity Commission (IC) investigative report into allegations of corruption and irregularities at the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) could be on the horizon if the two referees of Parliament refuse to table the document in short order.

Sharing a legal opinion from eminent senior counsel Michael B Hylton, KC, with Juliet Holness, the Speaker and Tom Tavares Finson, the Senate President, Opposition leader Mark Golding said if the FLA report was not tabled at the next sitting of the Lower House and the Senate, respectively, he would be instructing his lawyer to file proceedings in the court.

Hylton said the investigative report should be tabled, arguing that the reasons submitted for not tabling it could be successfully challenged in court.

The senior attorney said a claim by Golding against the Speaker and the President for the following declarations would have good prospects of success:

a. That the Speaker and the President have a duty to table in a reasonable time, reports submitted by the Integrity Commission, and that in this case a reasonable time has passed.

b. That absent a court order, the fact that a claim has been filed in court which relates to such a report is not a basis to not comply with that duty.

c. That Standing Orders 16(1)(g)(vi) and 35(2) do not override that duty.

The IC submitted the FLA report to Parliament on March 30, this year, but to date the report has not been tabled.

Responding to questions from The Gleaner, the leadership of Parliament indicated that the report was not tabled as a result of judicial proceedings and that the matter wassub judice.

On Tuesday, Leader of Government Business Floyd Green quoted from Standing Orders 16(1)(g)(vi) and 35(2) to argue that the tabling of the FLA investigative report would prejudice the court proceedings of which it is the subject.

The gun regulator has filed a challenge to the IC report in the Supreme Court.

Giving reasons why the report should be tabled, Hylton said Section 54(4) of the Integrity Commission Act, provides that where the Director of Investigation completes an investigation and is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an act of corruption has been committed, the Integrity Commission “shall submit [the investigative report] to Parliament for tabling…”

He noted that while the section does not expressly impose an obligation on the Speaker or the President to table the report, as under the predecessor legislation to the Integrity Commission Act and other earlier passed legislation, this alone does not settle the issue.

On a proper interpretation of section 54(4), Hylton said in the context of the Integrity Commission Act as whole, the submission of a report to Parliament requires the responsible persons, namely the Speaker and the President, to table that report within a reasonable time.

Hylton contended that the Integrity Commission Act established the Integrity Commission as a commission of Parliament and assigned the Commission statutory functions, which include the investigation of alleged or suspected acts of corruption.

He reasoned that it would frustrate the purpose of the Integrity Commission Act if an investigative report submitted to “Parliament” was not shared with the members of the Parliament, which the Constitution recognizes as including the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Hylton said it would be contrary to the intent of the law for the Speaker and/or the President to refuse to table the investigative report in the respective Houses of Parliament in a reasonable time after receiving it.

It is the tabling of the report which will bring it to the attention of Parliament, he insisted.

“There is nothing in the Integrity Commission Act which prevents the tabling of an investigative report if that report is the subject of judicial proceedings.”

Other reasons given by Hylton why the report should be tabled:

1.     Thesub judicerule would not apply to a tabling of the investigative report. Thesub judicerule is intended to protect and preserve the administration of justice by preventing public discussions that may prejudice a fair trial. The main purpose of thesub judicerule is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system by protecting it from undue influence.

2.     The tabling of the investigative report would be the formal process by which the document is submitted to the Houses of Parliament and its contents disclosed to their members. While this would make the report public record, it would not prejudice any existing litigation.

3.     The reliance on the Standing Orders to prevent the tabling of the investigative report in these circumstances is misconceived as the two referenced standing orders are inapplicable.

4.Standing Order 16(1)(g)(vi) deals with the asking of questions and prohibits questions “reflecting on the decision of a Court of Law or being likely to prejudice a case which is under trial…” Standing Order 35(2), which is under “Rules of Debate” deals with “Contents of Speeches” and provides that: “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might, in the opinion of the Chair, prejudice the interests of the parties thereto.”

5.     Neither standing order addresses, considers or deals with the formal tabling of a report to Parliament. In any event, the restrictions imposed under those standing orders are not blanket prohibitions against referring to matters which are the subject of judicial proceedings. The restrictions are against references which “are likely to” or “might” prejudice the case or the interest of the parties to a case.

- Edmond Campbell