... State minister rejects claims
Published:Wednesday | December 3, 2025 | 12:09 AM
Government minister and attorney-at-law Zavia Mayne has rejected claims by the Integrity Commission (IC) that he has not complied with a lawful request by the anti-corruption body.
In a statement yesterday, attorney-at-law Nigel Jones, who represents Mayne, said the IC’s decision to recommend that his client be charged following a disagreement on interpretation of a point of law “confirms that the commission is an entity that has lost its way and is on a ‘fishing expedition’”.
Jones said his client strongly and vehemently rejects any suggestion of non-compliance.
Jones said following a brief review of the report, which was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, he is of the view that the case against Mayne is “frivolous, vexatious, and without legal merit”.
According to Jones, his client has been diligent in filing his annual declarations with the IC. He said Mayne and his legal team’s disagreement with the IC emanates from a requisition from the commission for his client to provide audited financial statements of third-party companies in which Mayne is a shareholder.
Jones said his client disagrees with the basis for the aforementioned request, contending that the IC has no legal authority to make that demand as the law only requires his client to make a personal financial declaration of the assets and liabilities in his name.
He further states that the IC’s request for his client to make declarations about credit cards assigned to him through associated companies or credit cards that were never activated or used is ridiculous. Jones said all financial institutions with which Mayne has had dealings have submitted yearly letters to the IC, detailing the extent of Mayne’s business with them.
The attorney also contends that the attempt by the IC to now “embarrass” Mayne because he disagrees with it on a point of legal interpretation raises the serious question of motive. He said in a letter dated April 16, 2024, that Mayne invited the IC to seek a declaration from the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the relevant sections of the law on which they both had a disagreement.
Jones said to date, this has not been done, noting that “conveniently, the report of the commission made no mention of this request even though said letter was acknowledged by Craig Beresford”.
Beresford, then the director of information and complaints, is now executive director of the commission.