No IC privacy breach
Financial institutions obliged to furnish info on MPs and other public servants
Published:Thursday | June 26, 2025 | 12:10 AMEdmond Campbell/Senior Staff Reporter
The Supreme Court has affirmed that Section 7(2) of the Integrity Commission Act imposes a legal obligation on individuals and entities to cooperate with the Integrity Commission (IC) by complying with its information requests.
In a written judgment released on Tuesday, Justice Chester Stamp stated that “financial institutions are mandated to furnish upon request the information required by the commission to verify the statutory declarations”.
The ruling was originally issued on January 17, 2024, with the court indicating that detailed reasons would follow. Justice Stamp acknowledged a significant delay in delivering those reasons due to what he described as an “oversight” on his part, and he offered an apology for the inconvenience caused.
The court clarified that Section 7(2)of the Integrity Commission Act is intended to enhance the IC’s ability to detect and expose corruption among public officials and parliamentarians, particularly where individuals appear to control assets or financial resources disproportionate to their official earnings. Stamp noted that the provision reinforces the commission’s mandate to promote integrity and accountability in public life.
The judgment also addressed Section 42(2) of the act, which authorises the director of information to seek additional information from declarants.
“On the other hand, when he proceeds under Section 32(1)(b) to make inquiries to determine the accuracy of information furnished in the statutory declaration, it would be illogical for him to seek verification of that information from the declarant who provided it,” Stamp asserted.
Instead, the natural course would be to seek verification from independent sources, such as financial institutions.
The IC had turned to the court in November 2021 after Barita Investments Limited refused to comply with a June 2021 request for information related to 151 public officials. Barita’s legal team argued that providing the requested data could violate clients’ constitutional right to privacy, citing the case Robinson, Julian v The Attorney General of Jamaica. In that case, the court recognised the right to privacy as encompassing personal, informational, and decisional aspects.
However, Justice Stamp distinguished the current case from Robinson’s, noting that it did not involve the initial collection of personal financial data, but rather the verification of information already disclosed by public officials. He emphasised that public officers, by submitting statutory declarations, implicitly consent to the verification of their reported assets. This consent, he argued, is inherent to the statutory declaration process, which prioritises transparency and accountability.
“Consequently, such information falls outside the scope of the privacy protections the Charter aims to safeguard,” Stamp said.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the IC welcomed the court’s reasoning, highlighting its relevance as Section 7 of the Integrty Commission Act is currently under review by a joint select committee of Parliament.
Justice Stamp concluded by underscoring the critical role of the Integrity Commission Act in safeguarding Jamaica’s governance. He said it is a matter of public notoriety that corruption is endemic in Jamaica.
“Corrupt practices and enterprise are typically concealed, necessitating robust mechanisms for detection and enforcement,” he wrote.
At a June 2025 meeting of the Joint Select Committee reviewing the Integrity Commission Act, some committee members questioned whether the director of information should request information from third parties on parliamentarians’ financial affairs without first seeking their permission.
“Before the IC asks a third party for information, they should request that information from the member?” committee member and Justice Minister Delroy Chuck asked the solicitor general.
Continuing, he said: “It seems to me, if they are going to ask for information from a financial institution, the financial institution has a right to say, first, ‘no’. But the financial institution can say, ‘yes’. But if it says ‘yes’? Isn’t that an invasion of the member’s privacy?”
Responding, Solicitor General Marlene Aldred said: “Even if it is considered an infringement, I suspect it would fall under the general derogation. I think it would be something that would be considered reasonably justified in a free and democratic society because of the aim of the act.”