A Constitutional Crisis? Opposition Walks Out Over Secret Court Decision Today! 🇯🇲

追加: 2026-05-30

[00:00:02]So, the issue that confronts us now is this.

[00:00:15]If an individual is of the view in fact, not only an individual, if an >> [music] >> entity which is made up of individuals is of the view that there are findings which are adverse and perhaps not only adverse, but are possibly untrue because of the basis on which they were founded.

[00:00:59]If you form the view that a report contains that sort of information and the body that has done the investigation has sent the report to the appropriate place to be tabled and when tabled, the document becomes public with all the privileges and so forth that's attached to the contents.

[00:01:34]What recourse, if any should that individual or that body have um in seeking to prevent publication of the report?

[00:01:58]Is it okay for the the entity, such as the Integrity Commission, to be requested to halt tabling of the report, not tabling, sending of the report to Parliament?

[00:02:18]Or if they have already sent the report to Parliament, is it appropriate for counsel for the party who feels by the yet unpublished contents of the report to write to the appropriate people in the Parliament to say to them, "We have brought this particular action in court seeking to block publication of the report.

[00:02:52]And as such, we're asking you not to table the report until this matter is complete."

[00:03:04]Is it appropriate to do that? And if it is appropriate, if it's not inappropriate, what should the speaker, the clerk, the president of the Senate do upon receipt of such a letter, [music] which is what I understand has happened in this instance?

[00:03:30]So, it appears from the chronology given by the Gleener, that the Integrity Commission sent its report to the Parliament on the 30th of March.

[00:03:46]Some days after the report was sent, the Integrity Commission seems to have notified the attorneys for the FLA that the report was sent to Parliament.

[00:04:01]The attorneys for FLA wrote to Parliament to say, "We understand you have this report, but we have serious concerns with the contents because some of it is untrue.

[00:04:19]The process going about by the entity seems to be unfair, whatever it is that they're seeking because I've not seen the court papers.

[00:04:27]And we're seeking the court's intervention to I don't even know what the action is that they're seeking. Perhaps an application for judicial review or whatever they're asking for.

[00:04:41]And they say to the Parliament, "Can you hold hold off tabling the report?"

[00:04:50]And the the question then becomes until when?

[00:04:54]One doesn't know because if it's for judicial review, then you have to get permission.

[00:05:01]If you do get the permission, then you go file the application. When you do file the application, you will have date for the case management and after that the hearing of the matter and depending on that an appeal will come in.

[00:05:17]So some people might say, "We don't know how much time we're asking for this report to be held."

[00:05:23]But then the other question is, "Can it be in the interest of anything, let alone justice, for something to be published through the Parliament, through tabling in the Parliament, and discussions will inevitably flow from the tabling of that thing in the parliament.

[00:05:48]People are involved.

[00:05:51]Um some people might say that you can seek um redress in the court if you believe that your reputation has been unfairly tarnished by the publication of the report report, but remember now that the mere fact that the report comes through the parliament means attaches to the publication of the report. So, it's not so easy for one to get any redress in the court from something that is tabled in the parliament.

[00:06:28]And if you can't get redress, then no damages, no money can flow because of the privilege that is attached to the document that is tabled in the parliament.

[00:06:39]So, the question is how is this thing to be balanced? Is it that the speaker the president and all who manage the parliament should have a laser focus where all they do is table a report so soon as the report is received irrespective of whether they are aware of an application in the court to stop um the publication of the report.

[00:07:12]And if that is the approach that is to be taken is it not a way of um frustrating the processes that are legitimately going on in the Supreme Court on any matter?

[00:07:30]The other view is one doesn't know the legal bona fides of the application that is coming.

[00:07:43]It may be completely worthless.

[00:07:46]It may be a way in which any individual who is subject of an investigation by the Integrity Commission can seek to delay the tabling of a report. We may have an instance, for example, where coming close to an election, an individual who is a subject of an investigation and who is aware that the Integrity Commission is about to complete the investigation and to send it to Parliament, may not find it um politically appropriate to have the report tabled in Parliament before the election, and may just bring some sort of action in the court, knowing very well the action might not even succeed, having intentions anyway to withdraw the application soon, but then you can write to the speaker, write to the president, and say, "Can you not table the report because I have this particular application in court?"

[00:08:43]What is the correct balance to be had in all of these situations?

[00:08:52]One doesn't know, and I suspect that all of the the individual cases will have to be assessed individually.

[00:09:02]You can't really have a general principle to guide whatever is going on.

[00:09:09]I I'm [music] on it this morning because I understand that a decision is to be delivered in the court this morning on this matter.

[00:09:19]I don't even know what exactly is the application before the court on which a decision is to come this morning because I understand the matter is sort of a closed file. I don't even think the court will be opening itself to bringing this matter um live. I know the court administration division has been in the practice of putting out something to the media on something of national import, and I hope that something comes in this instance.

[00:09:51]But I don't even know what what exactly is the judge deciding or to be deciding on today.

[00:09:59]But what I do know is it has taken on a lot of political color which has led to the walkout of the opposition at a previous sitting of the House of Representatives.

[00:10:13]And later in the program you will hear a question being put in the Senate by Senator Lambert Brown to Senate President Tom Tavares Finson who was very absolute in the language that it is not the court has said in a previous case that the matter of the tabling of a report is really in the speaker's domain.

[00:10:39]And the court doesn't have any jurisdiction to compel the speaker to table a report at a certain time.

[00:10:49]And he cites a paragraph from a previous case.

[00:10:53]Part of the issue we're having now is that this Parliament is now remodeling itself and it is seeking to stick slavishly to a strict interpretation of the standing orders.

[00:11:07]So whereas in previous dispensations, speakers have been a lot less liberal in their interpretation.

[00:11:15]There has been a great restriction from this particular speaker in terms of adherence to the rule.

[00:11:23]But the bigger question is is there a space for the speaker to refuse from acting not only the speaker but the president of the Senate so soon as it's possible in the tabling of the report upon notification by an individual that a court action seeking to block the publication of a report has been made in the court.

[00:11:53]And the last thing I keep wondering is so if they've asked the parliament not to table the report the report which is subject of the court action has it not been disclosed within the context of the claim before the court?

[00:12:10]Because the court can't hear the matter in the dark.

[00:12:13]It must be disclosed before the court.

[00:12:15]Is it there?

[00:12:18]I hope when the court administration division puts out something we can have a little bit more clarity than we have at the moment on this sort of collision of of rights, of matters, of tabling versus court action running concurrent with the Integrity Commission and its duty to send reports to parliament. But we're on it. Let's see what happens in the court.

[00:12:42]We'll bring it to you when we have it.