PRIVACY CRY - Gov’t seeks to block IC’s access to personnel files in health ministry corruption probe; commission says mandate at risk

The Government has moved to court to prevent the Integrity Commission from compelling the Ministry of Health and Wellness to produce eight employment files as part of its investigation into alleged corruption linked to the Jamaica-Cuba Eye Care Programme.

The commission has warned that the Government's move could cripple corruption investigations across government, but the attorney general insists it is about protecting the constitutional privacy rights of public officers.

Filed in the Supreme Court on March 23, the case pits the attorney general – the State's principal legal officer – and Ministry of Health and Wellness Permanent Secretary Errol Greene against the Integrity Commission and its director of investigations, Kevon Stephenson.

The Government is seeking permission to apply for judicial review – a process through which a court examines whether a public authority acted lawfully and within its powers. The matter was last heard on May 15 before Justice Sonya Wint-Blair and will continue on June 11, according to the Court Administration Division.

While the dispute centres on eight personnel files, the case has emerged as part of a broader constitutional battle over the scope of the Integrity Commission's investigative powers and how far it can go in compelling government agencies to produce sensitive records.

It joins a growing list of legal challenges from public officials, state agencies and politically connected figures contesting aspects of the IC's operations since its establishment as the country's principal anti-corruption agency in 2017.

Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness is separately before the courts seeking to strike down provisions of the Integrity Commission Act as part of his challenge to its investigation into his financial affairs. Junior Finance Minister Zavia Mayne also filed a case concerning his statutory declarations. 

Parliament started reviewing the legislation, including proposals critics argue would weaken some of the commission's powers.

Beyond the health ministry case, the Government's filings reveal it is seeking broad orders to, at least temporarily, block the commission from serving notices or summonses on any ministry or department in pursuit of personnel files across the public service.

“All public officers in ministries and departments of Government will be directly affected by the court's determination concerning how the respondents should interact with public officers and how they treat with or access past and current public officers’ personal information,” said Greene, who, as permanent secretary, is the chief accounting officer and most senior civil servant in the ministry.

Stephenson warned the sweep of the orders sought would damage active investigations.

“Such an order may have an adverse impact on investigations currently under way and or near completion, in circumstances where there has been compliance and complete cooperation by other public officers, ministries or departments of Government,” he said.

The Government has insisted, however, that the injunctions do not halt the corruption investigation but “merely halt the seizure of personnel and employment files until this court determines the legal issues concerning same, including whether such seizure is lawful”.

It further argued that compliance with the request by the health ministry and other government bodies subject to IC demands will “infringe” constitutional rights to privacy and undermine the judicial review, if one is granted.

The immediate trigger is the commission’s investigation into alleged irregularities in contracts for the renovation of six Kingston apartments awarded under the Jamaica-Cuba Eye Care Programme, part of a 50-year bilateral medical arrangement Jamaica terminated in March amid pressure from the United States.

The commission issued a formal notice to the ministry, dated August 28, 2025, demanding a wide range of information. The ministry partially complied by handing over procurement documents but refused to provide the employment files of eight current and former officials, citing privacy concerns.

When correspondence failed to resolve the impasse, the commission, on February 25, 2026, served a summons to witness on Greene, compelling his appearance on March 27 with the files.

The Government filed an urgent application on March 23, challenging the request, and on March 26, Justice Simone Wolfe-Reece granted narrow interim injunctions, blocking the IC from acting on the notice and summons until a decision on the permission application is made.

Greene contended the files contain highly sensitive information unrelated to procurement.

“There invariably will be data in the employment files, for e.g. medical information, leave information, etc., which do not touch and concern procurement and/or the respondents' investigation about alleged corruption,” he stated in his affidavit.

According to him, the IC and Stephenson’s goal “is to investigate government contracts etc., not enquire into personal information which is not relevant to their substantive remit”.

He further argued that disclosing the data “could expose the Government of Jamaica to constitutional challenges”, while insisting, “I am in no way trying to obstruct or slow down the respondents’ investigation.”

Greene also alleged the February summons was retaliatory.

“The issuing of the summons to witness, in light of the attorney general’s application mentioned above, is designed to intimidate me into cooperation,” he stated. 

Stephenson has denied that allegation.

The Government, in its filings, argued the commission’s powers, though broad, are not unlimited and must be exercised proportionately. It invoked the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the Data Protection Act, contending the ministry could itself breach the law by surrendering the records without sufficient legal justification.

According to the attorney general, the commission and Stephenson “failed to properly interpret and apply section 48(1)(a) of the ICA in purporting to compel submission of documents that contain material concerning the personal privacy” of the officials.

Section 48 empowers the director of investigations to compel documents or information, specifying that no secrecy obligation, including the Official Secrets Act, can block compliance.

However, it also provides that no one can be compelled to produce material protected by legal professional privilege or which they could not otherwise be compelled to produce in court, a protection the Government argues extends to sensitive personal data in the employment files.

The commission has rejected the Government’s argument, noting that Greene was complying with the request for documents well before court action was filed.

Senior investigator Sanjay Harrisingh stated in a sworn affidavit that the files were needed “to identify handwriting samples, banking details, and contact information necessary to verify any nexus of potential fraud and irregularities identified in the award of contracts by the Ministry of Health and Wellness”.

He said the investigation had identified several ministry officers as integral to engagements and payments to a contractor, and that the probe had revealed "evidence of familial links between staff of the Ministry of Health & Wellness and the 'contractors'."

According to him, the IC’s “investigative powers ought not to be easily overridden by general privacy concerns without context”.

Stephenson similarly argued that based on Harrisingh’s evidence, the request for the files “is anything but sweeping” and is instead “relevant and targeted as the investigation evolved”.

"The applicants (AG and Greene) and the respondents' interest in preserving the public interest together with the detection, prevention and prosecution of acts of corruption and possible fraud, of which there is already probative evidence collected, show that the personnel files requested are demonstrably justified in the circumstances," he stated.

Stephenson also argued that requests for personnel and employment files had assisted the commission in previous investigations that resulted in criminal prosecutions, including one matter now before the Westmoreland Parish Court.

The commission further argued that the health ministry was not unique in receiving such requests and according to Stephenson, in eight other investigations where the commission requested personnel files, eight government entities complied fully without relying on the Data Protection Act to resist disclosure.

"Eight other government entities have fulfilled identical requests in other investigations without seeking to rely on any prejudice, as it is my belief that they share the common interest of the preservation of the public interest and public purse and the detection of any corruption if it exists. All government bodies and departments should share this common interest."

Stephenson also detailed what he described as prolonged resistance to the commission's efforts to serve documents. He said the commission granted multiple extensions between August and December 2025 before Greene allegedly began declining calls and ignoring messages from investigators.

A senior investigator alleged in an affidavit that a process server “intercepted Greene in the car park of the Ministry of Health and Wellness, where Greene refused to accept service of the documents and thereafter vacated the premises”.

The commission ultimately served the summons on March 2, 2026, more than six months after the original notice.

Stephenson argued the delay was fatal to the Government’s bid for an extension of time to challenge the August 2025 notice, noting judicial review applications must generally be filed within three months of when grounds arise.

According to him, the health ministry was well aware of the investigation and participated in the process the provision of evidence, including the giving of statements from as early as 2023 and up to October 2025.

The commission also argued the case brought by the Government and the health ministry amounts to an abuse of process, with similar issues already before the courts in the case of the state-owned Spectrum Management Authority and its managing director, Dr Maria Myers-Hamilton, which also involves a personnel file demand.

Justice Carole Barnaby granted the SMA permission to seek judicial review of an IC request for personnel files in December 2025.

The attorney general initially sought to intervene in the SMA case as an interested party in January, seeking orders and to file evidence. However, it later amended its application in April to seek participation only through written and oral submissions.

Stephenson argued the Government should have raised its concerns there rather than filing a new case. 

"This application is frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed on these bases," he stated.

However, Greene has countered, arguing that the notices and summons issued to him and the Ministry of Health and Wellness are not before the court in the Spectrum Management Authority case.

He said even if the attorney general's efforts to participate were granted, the orders sought there would not touch the notice and summons directed at him or the investigation into the ministry's personnel files.

editorial@gleanerjm.com