KINGSTON, Jamaica – July 29, 2025 – Jamaica’s Supreme Court has denied an application from Prime Minister Andrew Holness seeking to strike out portions of a sworn affidavit by a senior official of the Integrity Commission, marking the latest development in an ongoing legal battle over the agency’s investigation into the prime minister’s finances.
In a ruling delivered Monday, Justice Althea Jarrett rejected Holness’ claim that several paragraphs in the 108-page affidavit by Craig Beresford, the Commission’s Director of Information and Complaints, were “scandalous, frivolous, vexatious,” and amounted to an abuse of process. Holness also sought access to redacted documents he argued were central to his defense but was similarly denied.
- Advertisement -
However, the court granted Holness and his co-claimants — Imperium Holdings Limited, Positive Media Solutions, and Positive Jamaica Foundation — leave to appeal the ruling. The court also ordered the Commission to disclose select documents prepared during the controversial investigation, including a report by an international forensic accountant, which was handed over earlier this month.
A stay of proceedings was also approved, temporarily halting the October judicial review challenge until the appeal is resolved.
Background: Judicial Review and Financial Scrutiny
The court dispute stems from a wide-ranging judicial review and constitutional claim filed in September 2024 by Holness and three related corporate entities. The suit targets both Beresford and Kevon Stephenson, the Commission’s Director of Investigations, over what Holness argues is a flawed and unfair probe into his financial declarations and alleged illicit enrichment.
Stephenson had flagged concerns in 2021 over discrepancies in Holness’ financial filings, questions regarding tax compliance, and transactions exceeding J$470 million involving companies connected to the prime minister.
Holness has categorically denied any wrongdoing and maintains the Commission’s actions violate his constitutional rights and lack procedural fairness.
Legal Arguments: Abuse vs. Accountability
In his application, Holness challenged at least 12 paragraphs of Beresford’s affidavit, asserting that their content carried prejudicial weight without meaningful evidentiary value. However, the Integrity Commission, represented by law firm Hylton Powell, argued the statements were not only relevant but directly responsive to Holness’ allegations and within Beresford’s direct knowledge.
Justice Jarrett agreed with the Commission’s position, allowing the contested paragraphs to remain part of the court record.
Holness’ legal team, Henlin Gibson Henlin, contends that the Commission overstepped its mandate and weaponized its investigatory powers against the prime minister.
What Comes Next
With proceedings now on hold pending appeal, the legal tug-of-war over the Integrity Commission’s authority and the transparency of public officials’ finances continues to dominate headlines and fuel political tensions.
Observers note the case could have far-reaching implications for the scope of Jamaica’s anti-corruption framework and the accountability of its highest officeholders.
Holness has yet to issue a public statement on the ruling but remains adamant that his actions have been above board.
