Prime Minister Andrew Holness won the first round in his battle against the Integrity Commission (IC) on Friday when the Supreme Court granted his application for leave to seek a judicial review of the commission’s report into his statutory declarations.

Holness was also granted leave to seek an order quashing the August 30, 2024 IC report, as well as the commission’s special report, except for a paragraph recommending the development of a policy regarding government ministers and potential conflicts of interest.

The prime minister’s lawyers, in asking the Supreme Court to review the legality of the IC’s actions during its investigation into his solemn declarations, had argued that the reports, which were made public, “are tainted and should be invalidated “. .

The court, in its ruling on Friday, said the threshold test for permission to file an application for judicial review had been met.

However, the court rejected the Prime Minister’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel IC Director of Investigations Kevon Stephenson to recommend that he (Holness) be exonerated from his 2021 and 2022 statutory declarations in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate and in accordance with section 54(5).

This request was rejected on the grounds that the court cannot and will not usurp the decision-making powers of public bodies and officials.

Regarding the duties of Director of Information and Complaints, Craig Beresford, requests have been made to compel him to review the reports. Although Beresford initially said he had not reviewed the 2022 and 2023 reports, he stated via affidavit in response to the request that he had conducted the reviews. As a result, the court held that it could not grant permission to do what it had already done.

In a statement welcoming the decision, the Prime Minister’s lawyers, Georgia Gibson Henlin, King’s Counsel, and Senator Ransford Braham, King’s Counsel, said Holness did not need permission to request the statements. “Therefore, the 23 relief statements will be included in the application whose first hearing is now set for January 7, 2025.”

The Prime Minister disputes allegations in the IC report that he misappropriated funds from his company Positive Jamaica Foundation. Holness said the foundation “is not actively engaged in business” and is used by him to make grants or donations or to assist from time to time people who appeal to him for help. He said that although the business is used for charitable purposes, it is not a charity and is not registered as such.

In the 179-page report on the Prime Minister’s statutory declarations, which was tabled in the House of Representatives in September, the committee’s director of prosecutions decided that no charges should be brought against Holness for failing to declare four bank accounts in its statutory declarations. The commission had raised a litany of questions regarding bond transactions and loans taken out by companies in which at least one of his sons is connected. Questions have been raised over whether the companies were complying with their legal filings with the Revenue Authority of Jamaica (TAJ).

The tabling of the investigation report, an addendum, the commission’s decision and the special report, marked the culmination of a two-year investigation during which the solemn declarations of the Prime Minister remained uncertified .

The investigation focused on whether Holness owned assets disproportionate to his legitimate income and whether he actually made false statements in his statutory declarations by omission, contrary to the law.

The four bank accounts in question had balances totaling just under $446,000 and were in the names of Holness’ mother, father and a former precinct employee. Holness had told Parliament he had been added to the accounts in his parents’ name and, in the case of the former constituency worker, he said he remembered encouraging her to open the bank account, but didn’t remember how his name appeared on the account.

The commission has yet to certify the prime minister’s 2023 solemn declaration, which is not the subject of this legal battle.