FLA loses first round in legal battle with IC over its untabled corruption report

Questions mount when contentious report will be tabled in parliament

Durrant Pate/Contributor

The Supreme Court has refused a petition from the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) for disclosure of the contentious Integrity Commission (IC) report on its corruption probe at the firearms regulatory authority.

However, the court has given the FLA leave to appeal the ruling. Also, the court set September 17, 2026, for the hearing of the FLA’s application for permission to seek judicial review of the IC’s investigative processes regarding the details of its findings into allegations of corruption and irregularities at the agency.

The IC, one of Jamaica’s primary anti-corruption agency, investigated allegations of corruption, impropriety, and irregularities in the granting, variation, and revocation of firearm licenses at the FLA.

Details of the ruling

In delivering the ruling, the Supreme Court in chambers judge, Justice Tara Carr held that the report remains confidential under the provisions of the Integrity Commission Act until it is formally tabled in parliament. 

In refusing the FLA’s application for disclosure, Justice Carr argued that the court already had sufficient information to determine the issues arising at the leave stage of the judicial process and that disclosure of the report was therefore unnecessary at this point in the proceedings.

Today’s ruling further deepens this legal and constitutional dispute, which has simultaneously gripped Jamaica’s Parliament, where the report, submitted on March 30, remains untabled more than seven weeks after its delivery to the parliamentary leaders, House Speaker Juliet Holness and Senate President Tom Tavares Finson.

There is no injunction blocking the tabling, but the parliament’s leadership has said it will not act in a manner that could prejudice court proceedings, arguing that the matter was sub judice, meaning the case is actively being considered or tried by a court and has not yet been resolved.

The parliamentary leader decided to defer tabling the report pending the outcome of legal proceedings. This was done much to the annoyance of the Opposition and some civil society groups.

Demands mounting for report to be tabled

While the ruling is silent on any tabling of the report, there is mounting calls for the report to be tabled, considering there is no injunction blocking that this be done. News came last week that the IC had written to the Houses of Parliament formally urging them to table its investigation report, signalling growing impatience with the delay. 

The letter was penned by the IC Executive Director, Craig Beresford, on May 7 and addressed to the Clerk to the Houses of Parliament, Colleen Lowe, invoking a Supreme Court ruling in the Ian Hales case to reinforce its position the parliament is within its right to table the report even though a ruling is expected today.

The letter stops short of demanding immediate action but makes its expectations known, stating that it anticipates the Houses will move to table the report to ensure transparency and statutory compliance. The IC contends that the parliament need not be detained by these legal proceedings, referring to the Hayles v Contractor General case, as legal authority for its stance. 

In that case, the court held that once an investigative report has been finalised and transmitted to Parliament, the tabling of such a report is the internal business of Parliament and that Parliament must now act. Two weeks ago, the Opposition walked out of parliament over the non -tabling of the report, with Party Leader, Mark Golding leading the charge, promising to take the parliamentary leaders to court if the report is not tabled forthwith. 

He shared a legal opinion from eminent senior counsel Michael B Hylton, King’s Counsel, who opines that 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 based on the following:

·      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.

·      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 complying with that duty.

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

Parliamentary leaders have pushed back

However, Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson last week declared that Parliament’s presiding officers would not bow to any intimidation or threat from the Opposition Leader, who had warned he would pursue court action to compel tabling of the report.

Tavares-Finson also clarified that the decision to withhold the report was not taken by House Speaker Juliet Holness alone, but jointly by both presiding officers in consultation with parliamentary legal officers.