Peter Bunting tell why the JLP hiding the integrity Commission report

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]The church must speak clarity to the nation's conscience.

[00:00:06]Jamaica must never become a society where power operates without accountability.

[00:00:15]We must never accept the idea that any harm of state has absolute power over the lives of any citizen.

[00:00:26]We must never become so desperate for order that we surrender justice. We must never become so afraid of crime that we normalize excessive force, suspicious killing or the erosion of human dignity.

[00:00:50]>> Welcome again to the channel Life with Jennifer JM. I'm your girl Auntie J.

[00:00:56]Where is my friend and my subscriber?

[00:01:01]You know me just listen to Peter Bond try to talk with the government. You know say the Jamaica Labor Party government is a dirty government then dirty full of corruption no transparency and I hear Paul just talk about it when listen to them sit >> ordered parliament not to table this report yes or no let me just clarify something here Peter Bunting because you have spoken about a court action coming out of this foreign licensing authority saying that they would have now um attempted to get the court involved on this. Parliament as a result has said that this matter is subjudicated that it the court proceedings are active. But a previous Jamaican court ruling established that the tableing of such a report is a parliamentary internal affair immune from court jurisdiction.

[00:01:59]Has a court actually ordered parliament not to table this report? Yes or no?

[00:02:04]because that seems to be um for many people.

[00:02:07]>> It's not and and a court will not because if you look in the Ian Hills heels versus the office of the contractor general ruling section 60, it said the speaker and president would have been acting intravirus that is within their powers by tableabling the report submitted to it by the OCG. their actions would be categorized as parliament conducting their internal affairs and as such their actions would be immune immune from the jurisdiction of the court. So there's no likelihood of there being any success in in such a court action. It is just a deliberate attempt to delay and postpone this report and in and frustrate the whole um scheme of the integrity commission and our oversight watchdogs like the auditor general. If somehow the speaker could end up acting as a gatekeeper to protect the administration from embarrassment rather than as a uh you know impartial president clarify for those at home this president that you have raised is important as Ian Hales and the office of the contractor general matter because what we now have as the integrity commission was formerly um the office of the contractor general.

[00:03:40]There was some rearranging to have us now have the integrity commission. So that is why that particular >> hear what said my people Jesus know what is this what kind of crime we commit down party listening to the saga >> 23 in a ruling Juliet homelessness as speaker she said um and let me quote it here when she talking about integrity commission reports submitted under the section 54 subsection 4 of the integrity commission act. She said that they would be tabled as soon as possible after receipt by the parliament having regard the serious nature of the matters contained therein. Gordon House is now saying though in a release that the act sets no specific tableabling timeline which is what seems to be the controversy here why we have 51 days without this report being tabled. Can both positions be true at the same time?

[00:04:46]>> It can't. And in fact that if you were to go to the final sentence of that paragraph of the speaker's ruling in 2023 and it's not a previous speaker, it's a current speaker. The final sentence said no effort will be made to delay such reports. Yet we have waited 51 days for this report to be tabled.

[00:05:11]And now you know you cannot help but ask in whose interest is being served by delaying the tableabling of this these reports. And as I started out um you know in my opening sentence, this is not just a procedural technicality.

[00:05:33]the if these reports can be delayed indefinitely at the whim of the presiding officers of parliament or the speaker or the president then Jamaica's anti-corruption architecture which relies on the oversight of parliament remember parliament is not just the executive parliament is all parliamentarias but with a special obligation on the opposition because obvious Obviously we don't support the government and we will be not we will not be compromised in criticizing and exposing any corruption any abuse of power any impropriy and irregularities. That is why the laws, the various laws, both the contractor generals and the integrity commission act um require tableabling of these reports >> and your positioning on this help Jamaicans understand 51 days this report has been before parliament. We can't see it. We can't talk about it. We can't discuss it. Do we run the risk that every report could have somebody say, "I'm going to court on this particular issue," thereby barring Parliament and thus the rest of the country from finding out what the integrity commission has found. But what we will have is that the reports like the ones tabled today that are reports um related to relatively minor officials in the system and usually for breaches of of you know not filing or not filing on time. Those reports you will see um come through without delay. But the ones that uh affect the big fish, the ones that expose impropriy or corruption, especially those that will embarrass the government, um we we really um are in danger of action being brought. And when you realize that the government will be on both sides of this court action because it would in a sense it would be the government that would be defending the action. So there would be definitely no incentive for the government to move these quickly through the court system.

[00:07:53]So it would is really just a scheme to frustrate the anti-corruption bodies from operating as they were intended to by the law and to hide from the public um matters that the public deserves to know. And let me just clarify for people at home. It would be an attorney general against the firearm licensing authority there. And that is what Peter Bunting is saying would be the government against itself. We'll certainly be watching this matter. Peter Bunting, opposition spokesman on hear it. Tell me want to think, leave a view, leave a comment and remember to like, share, subscribe to the channel with Jennifer J. Catch you on the next time. Bye.