Deadline debate - Gordon House dismisses criticisms of long delay in tabling  FLA report

Gordon House has made no commitment to tabling any of five Integrity Commission reports, including one on the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) submitted seven weeks ago, pointing out that the Integrity Commission Act sets no deadline for such reports to be laid in Parliament.

“The Integrity Commission Act does not prescribe a specific timeline or procedure for the tabling of reports submitted to Parliament. The reports will therefore be dealt with in accordance with Parliament’s constitutional, legal and procedural responsibilities,” Parliament said in a statement yesterday.

It added: “They are being addressed in accordance with the internal processes of Parliament and under the guidance of the presiding officers.”

The statement came about 24 hours after Opposition Leader Mark Golding demanded the immediate tabling of the report into alleged corruption and irregularities at the FLA.

The FLA report was submitted to Parliament on March 30. The gun regulator subsequently filed a legal challenge in the Supreme Court around April 7 seeking to contest the unpublished report.

On Friday, the Integrity Commission disclosed that it had submitted four additional reports and “anticipates the tabling of the five reports it submitted to Parliament”.

In Monday’s statement, Gordon House made clear that Parliament considers the handling and tabling of reports to fall within its own internal authority.

It also acknowledged its awareness of “related correspondence and court proceedings”, but asserted that it retained control over how documents were handled. “Parliament is responsible for the regulation of its own internal proceedings, including the manner in which documents submitted to it are laid before the Houses.”

The statement stopped short of indicating when any of the five reports would be tabled, though such reports are traditionally laid in Parliament shortly after submission.

“The Houses of Parliament remain committed to transparency, accountability, and the proper observance of the law. No further substantive comment will be made at this time,” it concluded.

In response to Gleaner queries last week, Parliament said that, in light of the court proceedings brought by the FLA, “it would be inappropriate for the Houses

of Parliament to make any substantive comment or take any action in respect of the report while the matter remains before the court."

The controversy erupted after The Sunday Gleaner revealed that seven weeks ago, Parliament received but has not tabled the IC’s FLA report, which its cover letter described as dealing with “allegations of corruption, impropriety, and irregularities in the grant, variation and revocation of firearm licences and storage of firearms and ammunition at the Firearm Licensing Authority”.

The Gleaner has seen a copy of the covering letter signed by Integrity Commission Executive Director Craig Beresford and addressed to House Speaker Juliet Holness and Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson.

In a letter to Holness dated May 17, Golding said he was “alarmed” that the report remained untabled more than six weeks after its submission.

“As leader of the Opposition, it is therefore my duty to demand the tabling of this report at the next meeting of the House,” Golding wrote.

He argued that unless there was a specific court order preventing tabling, Parliament had no lawful basis for withholding the report. “The existence of court proceedings cannot be a lawful or proper basis for the continuing non-disclosure of this report,” Golding contended.

The Opposition leader warned that allowing public bodies to stall disclosure by filing court proceedings could undermine the anti-corruption framework established under the Integrity Commission Act.

Constitutional lawyer Dr Lloyd Barnett has taken a different view, arguing that Parliament’s caution may be appropriate depending on the nature of any applications before the court and subsequent orders.

“If there is an application for non-disclosure, then you wouldn't frustrate the court proceedings. We have to have respect for the judicial system,” Barnett told The Sunday Gleaner last week.

However, retired Court of Appeal President Justice Seymour Panton, a former chairman of the Integrity Commission, said Parliament should proceed with tabling the report. “I have no doubt in my mind that the Parliament should table the report. It’s as simple as that - they should table the report,” Panton said.

“We need to remember what happened in the matter of Mr [Ian] Hayles, where for years the report was not tabled, and that was wrong,” he added.

“In all our public activities, we should stay far away from this matter of secrecy,” Panton said.

In dismissing then Hanover Western MP Ian Hayles’ bid to block the tabling of an Office of the Contractor General report, the Supreme Court ruled in December 2022 that tabling such reports constituted part of Parliament’s internal proceedings and was therefore beyond the reach of the courts.

The Court Administration Division confirmed last week that the FLA matter is sealed, and declined to provide details relating to the proceedings, including any orders made, hearing dates, or the judge assigned to the case.

FLA head Shane Dalling has declined to comment on the matter. 

editorial@gleanerjm.com