Stuck in the Chamber - FLA investigation report stuck in legal limbo six weeks after submission to Parliament

A report on an Integrity Commission investigation into alleged corruption and irregularities at the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) remains untabled in Parliament six weeks after its submission, amid a legal challenge by the gun regulator in the Supreme Court.

The Integrity Commission confirmed to The Sunday Gleaner last Tuesday that a report had been submitted to Parliament on March 30, 2026, and was formally received and signed for at 1:02 p.m. that day. 

Citing Section 56 of the Integrity Commission Act (ICA), the agency said it could not confirm the subject of the report, declined to say whether it involved the FLA, and stated that it was unable to disclose whether any delay in tabling the report was linked to the court action, according to responses provided to Sunday Gleaner queries by the anti-corruption body.

Section 56 of the ICA enforces strict confidentiality over details of investigations until reports are tabled in Parliament. 

The Sunday Gleaner has seen a copy of a letter that Parliament received advising it of the report. 

It described the report as covering "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 letter is signed by IC Executive Director Craig Beresford and addressed to House Speaker Juliet Holness and Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson and copied to Clerk to the Houses of Parliament, Colleen Lowe.

After the Budget Debate ended on March 24, the House of Representatives took a break and resumed weekly sittings on April 14. The Senate also resumed its regular sittings. 

Gordon House, in a response to The Sunday Gleaner last Tuesday, did not confirm or deny that it held the report, but acknowledged awareness of the legal proceedings when asked about the whether it had received the document, and, if so, why it had not been tabled. 

"The Houses of Parliament are aware of correspondence from attorneys-at-law acting on behalf of the Firearm Licensing Authority in connection with the above-mentioned matter," the statement said. 

It said the correspondence from FLA's lawyers "brought to our attention that proceedings are currently before the Supreme Court of Jamaica, including an application for judicial review, injunctive relief, and related orders pertaining to a report prepared by the Integrity Commission.

"In light of those active judicial proceedings, the matter is presently sub judice, and 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," Gordon House said.

Parliament added that it "takes its constitutional responsibilities seriously and will be guided accordingly as the judicial process unfolds".

The Court Administration Division said on Thursday that the case is sealed in the Supreme Court. As such, it declined to provide any details relating to the matter, including information on applications filed, any rulings made by the court, hearing dates or the judge assigned – all details The Sunday Gleaner sought. 

Documents seen by The Sunday Gleaner confirm that the FLA made an urgent application in the Supreme Court about April 7, naming the Integrity Commission as first respondent and its director of investigation, Kevon Stephenson, as second respondent.

The application initially sought an injunction to block the tabling of the report and permission to seek judicial review – a process by which a court examines whether the procedures used to arrive at a decision were fair and lawful.

It is not clear whether the injunction application is still being pursued, and Parliament did not point to any injunction served on it. The FLA is reportedly focused on obtaining a court order for the Integrity Commission to disclose a copy of the report to it, which, it argues, is key to supporting its bid for permission to seek judicial review.

FLA head Shane Dalling declined to comment when contacted by The Sunday Gleaner on Tuesday. Similarly, on questions relating to the court case, the Integrity Commission said it "offers no comment".

A source at the FLA said the authority "strongly disagrees" with the findings of the investigation, which itself has reportedly been labelled in court as a “fishing expedition”. The entity has reportedly claimed that the report would cause irreparable reputational harm, and persons were not given fair opportunity to respond to the complaint that gave rise to the probe that started around 2021.

A meeting was held with officials of the FLA in March, days before the report was sent to Parliament, and concerns were raised, according to an official who was not authorised to speak on the matter. 

The commission has reportedly argued that, since the report had already been submitted, no injunction could prevent an action that had already been completed. It also contended that the FLA has alternative avenues to challenge the report other than attempting to block its publication, and that disagreement with the report’s findings does not, in itself, amount to a breach of procedural fairness.

The court action has effectively left the report in an unusual constitutional and legal limbo – submitted by the commission, received by Parliament, no clear idea of injunction and yet unavailable to the public while the judicial process plays out.

A similar situation occurred in 2017 with the Integrity Commission's forerunner, the Office of the Contractor General, when then Hanover Western Member of Parliament Ian Hayles secured an order blocking an investigation report from being tabled. 

Hayles had similarly sought permission to seek a judicial review but ultimately lost his bid in December 2022, and the report was tabled a month later. 

The FLA case has also again thrown up questions about whether Parliament, to which courts give significant deference in regulating its own affairs, is restricted once a party connected to a report sent to the Houses takes the issue to court.

It has also raised questions in government about whether subjects of investigations can effectively stall the release of findings through pre-emptive court action, potentially undermining the work of oversight bodies.

Constitutional lawyer Dr Lloyd Barnett says Parliament's decision to hold back on releasing the FLA report, if that is what it is, is proper even as he said specific actions would be based on the nature of any court 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," he told The Sunday Gleaner on Thursday. 

On Friday, the Integrity Commission advised the public that it had submitted four investigation reports and associated rulings to Gordon House. It mentioned that those are in addition to the report it submitted on March 30.

"The commission anticipates the tabling of the five reports it submitted to Parliament," a statement said. 

editorial@gleanerjm.com