Author: Patrice Walters

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.

The Supreme Court has started hearing an application brought by Prime Minister Andrew Holness against the Integrity Commission.

Mr. Holness is seeking permission to go to the judicial review court to quash the report, including recommendations from the commission, about his still uncertified 2021 statutory declarations.

Attorney at law Ransford Braham made submissions today before Justice Althea Jarrett in chambers.

Braham reportedly emphasized the importance of the matter being decided by the judicial review court.

The matter will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament in September, outlined an investigation into some banking transactions involving Mr. Holness and 3 entities connected to him.

The commission had, among other things recommended that the matter be examined by the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

Mr. Holness claims that the commission’s report has errors and miscalculations, and that it sought to impute criminal conduct.

In the suit, he is seeking the court’s determination on certain aspects of the commission’s investigative remit.

He is also challenging aspects of the legislation governing the commission.

Additionally, he is challenging the constitutionality of the corruption prevention act which allows public officials to be prosecuted, if they fail to explain assets disproportionate to their income.

The respondents in the suit are the commission and 2 of its directors.