Gov’t regulator moves to shut down IC probe

The Spectrum Management Authority (SMA) has gone to court to block an ongoing investigation by the Integrity Commission (IC), accusing the anti-corruption body of acting illegally and abusing its powers. The commission has rejected those claims and says it is concerned that evidence could be destroyed.

Justice Carole Barnaby is expected to rule on December 19 on whether the SMA will be allowed to pursue a judicial review of the IC and its director of investigations, Kevon Stephenson. She heard arguments in the matter in November.

The judge will also decide whether the IC’s investigation should remain on hold while the legal challenge proceeds. A temporary freeze, agreed to by both sides, has been in place since July.

Judicial review allows the court to examine whether a public authority acted lawfully. The case is unusual because it involves one public body seeking to halt an investigation by another.

At stake are the limits of the Integrity Commission’s investigative powers, how much information it must give to subjects of an investigation, the rights of statutory bodies to legal counsel, and the legality of seizing public records and personnel files.

According to court filings, the Integrity Commission launched its investigation in December 2023. It is examining “allegations of corruption, irregularities and impropriety”, including whether any member of the authority breached the law.

The probe includes scrutiny of steam cleaning and sanitisation contracts awarded between 2020 and 2024.

The legal challenge centres on the validity and scope of several notices of investigation and a summons issued by Stephenson between April and July 2025, as well as the seizure of documents from the SMA’s offices.

44 GROUNDS

The claim was brought by the SMA, which regulates Jamaica’s radio frequency spectrum, and its managing director, Dr Maria Myers-Hamilton.

They are asking the court to quash all investigative notices and summonses, bar the IC from acting on them, and order the immediate return of all seized documents, including Myers-Hamilton’s personnel file.

The SMA’s application is based on 44 grounds, alleging “procedural unfairness, irrationality, unreasonableness, illegality, and abuse of power and discretion” by the commission.

The authority and its managing director argue that the IC’s notices and summonses were vague, arbitrary, and failed to clearly identify the subject matter of the investigation or the basis for suspecting wrongdoing.

In a July 25 affidavit, Myers-Hamilton said that unless restrained, Stephenson would continue to act in bad faith and abuse his powers.

“The respondents will continue with the investigations in relation to vague and non-specific allegations that will have the effect of jeopardizing my liberty,” she said.

The dispute was triggered by two visits from IC investigators to the SMA, outlined in an affidavit from Kadianne Wood, the authority’s director of legal affairs.

Wood said the first visit took place on April 11, when investigators seized documents including board attendance records, payment vouchers, invoices and contract papers. She said no warrant was presented and that she was led to believe the IC had authority to seize the documents.

The second visit occurred on July 9, when an IC team arrived to review and copy personnel files for seven employees who worked at the SMA between 2018 and 2024.

Myers-Hamilton said she was not among the seven, but Stephenson maintains that she was covered by the notice, which referred to “all employment contracts and any other information”.

Wood said that during the July 9 encounter, after consulting with the SMA’s lead attorney, King’s Counsel Georgia Gibson Henlin, she informed the IC team that permission to access the files was being withdrawn while legal advice was obtained. A letter to that effect was delivered, and the team left.

“The letter from Henlin Gibson Henlin … was not a refusal to comply with any lawful and valid authority of the respondents,” said Wood, adding that the lawyer had simply requested one week to give legal advice to the SMA.

Days later, on July 15, the IC issued new notices to at least two officials and served a summons on Juliet Salmon-Rhoomes, the director of corporate services, requiring her to attend a hearing the next day and bring documents.

The SMA accused the commission of trying to bypass its objections and its right to seek legal advice.

In a July 14 letter, Gibson Henlin told the IC that the July 9 notice failed to set out reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and lacked sufficient detail about the allegations.

“Neither is there any statement of the gist or timing of the facts giving rise to the allegations. The request, as presently framed, lacks the necessary specificity and clarity required by law,” the lawyer wrote.

At the July 16 hearing, Wood said she accompanied Salmon-Rhoomes to restate the SMA’s position and advise that Salmon-Rhoomes did not have authority to release the documents.

In her own affidavit, Myers-Hamilton said she did not authorise the release of the personnel files because she was “taking legal advice to ascertain the rights of the 1st applicant (SMA) as well as relevance”.

Wood said matters then descended into confusion.

After the hearing, she said she rushed to her attorney’s office to give instructions to seek an injunction after learning that IC investigators were returning to the SMA to seize documents.

She described staff members panicking and making frantic calls as Stephenson and his team arrived and seized documents relating to the seven officials named in earlier notices.

IC’S RESPONSE

The Integrity Commission and Stephenson have defended their actions, saying they fall squarely within the commission’s statutory mandate.

In his affidavit, Stephenson said he is “expressly empowered” to summon witnesses, compel documents, and determine appropriate procedures for an investigation.

He denied that the investigators acted in an intimidating manner, despite claims that armed personnel were present.

“We have acted openly, transparently and fairly, but at the same time, being acutely aware that we are not bound to act on the requests of counsel for the applicants,” Stephenson said in his August 22 filing.

Stephenson further argued that because the Integrity Commission “is not subject to the direction of any other person or authority other than the court”, the SMA’s invocation of the right to counsel “did not preclude us from using other avenues available to us” to continue the probe.

Stephenson said that after he warned Salmon-Rhoomes that failure to comply could result in criminal charges, she agreed to provide the documents and requested that investigators collect them from the SMA’s offices.

He rejected the claim that Myers-Hamilton could prevent staff from cooperating, stating that a “superior officer’s orders is not a valid excuse for breaking the law”.

Wood contended that his reference to “superior orders” related to the summons, but Stephenson denied saying so.

Stephenson said investigators were told during the July 16 visit that employees had been instructed not to cooperate and that he learned at that time that the SMA was seeking an injunction.

He also rejected claims that the notices were vague, saying Myers-Hamilton had been informed of “the nature of the investigation that was being conducted”.

Stephenson said the commission “were and remain fearful that evidentiary material relevant to the investigation is at risk of being destroyed or otherwise disposed of”.

Myers-Hamilton has rejected that assertion as baseless.

DELAY DISPUTE

The case is complicated by the fact that the SMA applied late to challenge the April 11 notice and is seeking an extension of time.

Myers-Hamilton said that after the April seizure, she sought legal advice and reported the matter to the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Energy, Telecommunications and Transport. When there was no further contact from the IC, the SMA believed the investigation had ended.

The authority said it did not realise the April and July notices were part of the same investigation.

Stephenson and the Integrity Commission are represented by attorney-at-law Annaliesa Lindsay.

Sunday Gleaner requests for comment were sent to both the Integrity Commission and the Spectrum Management Authority, but no response had been received up to press time.

editorial@gleanerjm.com