In a rare move, Governor General Sir Patrick Allen has submitted formal recommendations to a joint select committee reviewing the Integrity Commission Act (ICA), proposing legislative changes aimed at enhancing the efficiency, transparency and independence of the Integrity Commission (IC).
Last week, Edmund Bartlett, chairman of the parliamentary committee, informed members that he had received a submission from the governor general, which would be discussed during their deliberations. However, the committee concluded its review of several recommendations without addressing the submission from King’s House. A report is now expected to be prepared and tabled in Parliament.
In his June 6, 2025 submission – seen by The Sunday Gleaner – Sir Patrick highlighted what he described as “ambiguity in leadership authority” within the IC. While Section 29 of the ICA grants day-to-day management responsibilities to the executive director, statutory directors report directly to the commissioners. This dual reporting structure, the governor general argued, has created silos that undermine coordination and operational efficiency.
Sir Patrick also pointed to concerns over staffing and compensation. He noted that these matters are handled by a special committee established under Section 35 of the ICA, rather than being referred directly to the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service (MOFPS). While he acknowledged that this arrangement serves as a vital safeguard against executive interference – preserving the IC’s independence – he contrasted it with the situation at his own office.
He said that despite being a constitutional entity, the Office of the Governor General lacks a similar protective mechanism.
“Despite Section 31 of the Constitution vesting resource responsibility in Parliament, this function has been delegated to the Executive (MOFPS), resulting in chronic under-resourcing and limited advocacy capacity,” he charged.
He called attention to the Section 35 Committee as a key example of how parliamentary oversight can help uphold institutional autonomy. This committee includes the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the leaders of government and opposition business in both chambers, and the minister of finance.
AMBIGUITIES RE ACTING ROLE
The governor general also raised concerns about ambiguities surrounding the procedure for acting appointments. His submission followed recent controversy over the appointment of Roneiph Lawrence as acting director of corruption prosecution. Government leaders Edmund Bartlett and Kamina Johnson Smith expressed concerns over Lawrence’s political ties, including his connection to People’s National Party General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell.
Although the Integrity Commission chair, Justice (Ret’d) Carol Lawrence-Beswick, said critics must provide “relevant” and “cogent” evidence to warrant an investigation, Sir Patrick said he was formally alerted to the acting appointment and the concerns by Bartlett and Johnson Smith via a joint letter.
Under Section 34 of the ICA, the governor general may appoint statutory directors only upon receiving a formal recommendation from the IC. Sir Patrick emphasised that no such recommendation was made in the case of Lawrence’s acting appointment.
While the law is silent on acting appointments, Section 57 requires that anyone appointed – whether acting or substantive – must first take an oath of office, administered by the governor general before they begin to perform their duties.
“This implies that the commission should formally notify the governor general of such acting appointments,” he said.
Despite this lack of formal notification, The Sunday Gleaner has confirmed that the governor general last week administered the oath to Lawrence, whose acting appointment the IC announced in April.
Sir Patrick has urged lawmakers to create regulations under the ICA to clarify the process for acting appointments and close this legislative gap.
He also noted the absence of provisions for the appointment of an acting executive director. While Section 28(1) outlines the procedure for appointing a substantive executive director, it does not specify how an acting appointment should be handled or the terms under which such an individual should serve. By contrast, Section 30(8) provides for acting appointments to other statutory director roles for up to three months.
This deficiency in the law, Sir Patrick said, became particularly clear when the IC recently had to appoint an acting executive director and resorted to the same process used for a permanent appointment.
edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com
