Lawyers for Prime Minister Andrew Holness have asked the court to strike down the provisions of the Integrity Commission Act and a particular section of the Corruption Prevention Act, in their application for judicial review of the findings of reports tabled in parliament by the Integrity Commission concerning his statutory declarations.
George Davis has our story.
Holness’ attorneys, Henlin Gibson Henlin have asked the Supreme Court to make 20 orders or declarations in favour of their client in his battle against the Integrity Commission.
They want the court to grant a declaration striking down provisions of the Integrity Commission Act due to the lack of fairness, impartiality and independence in the exercise of the functions of the divisions and the commission, as presently structured.
They want the court to declare that section 14 subsection 5 of the Corruption Prevention Act is unconstitutional and should be struck down as it breaches the presumption of innocence guaranteed under section 13 3A of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
They say this is necessary because the Corruption Prevention Act places the burden of proof on Andrew Holness, in what they cite as an instance of reverse onus, to prove an essential element of the offence of illicit enrichment.
They want the Corruption Prevention Act struck down as unconstitutional as it breaches Holness’ due process rights as guaranteed by section 16-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
Holness’ lawyers are seeking this particular declaration on the grounds that the role of investigator and prosecutors at the Integrity Commission, have not been decoupled.
They want the court to declare that given that there was no statement or reasonable suspicion against Holness, in the reports tabled in parliament concerning his statutory declarations, and there being no reference to the director of corruption prosecution, the Integrity Commission was then wrong to submit those reports to parliament for tabling.
Credit: Source link