PM’s business partner Norman Brown drops case against IC | Lead Stories

Norman Brown, business partner of Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness, has withdrawn his case against the Integrity Commission (IC), citing a wish to protect his reputation amid the intense media scrutiny the matter has generated.
“I have withdrawn because if I was to succeed, … it would be, well, I’m calling it a pyrrhic victory, and I think that a similar case is already there,” he said, noting that some of the issues he aimed to challenge are already part of Holness’ ongoing legal challenge against Jamaica’s main anti-corruption body and the 2017 law that established it.
Brown had sought judicial review of sections of an Integrity Commission report that questioned his company’s tax compliance and potential conflicts of interest arising from his chairmanship of two state agencies – the Urban Development Corporation and the Housing Agency of Jamaica – that report to Holness.
While the court allowed him to challenge the tax-related findings, it rejected his bid to contest the report’s comments on potential conflicts of interest. The report suggested that the similarities between the two state agencies that Brown chairs and his relationship with the prime minister “pose significant conflict of interest concerns”.
Brown expressed disappointment with the court’s ruling on the conflict of interest issue, which was a central part of his claim.
“I would have gone for it,” he told The Sunday Gleaner on Friday, referring to his approach had he been allowed to pursue the conflict of interest issue.
REPUTATIONAL CONCERN
In his first public comments since the court ruling, Brown expressed concern over the reputational damage caused by the media coverage.
“We know the culture of the political space in Jamaica is that once you attach my name to something, then people make up their own narratives about these things,” Brown said, adding that the Integrity Commission “could have conveyed their message about any of this matter without putting me in the middle of it for nothing.
“So, I deem it quite unfair. But, you know, that’s the nature of a bad law. People’s reputation and integrity must mean something as well.”
The withdrawal comes just weeks before the first hearing in his judicial review case, which was scheduled for February 25. The substantive matter would likely have been set for after Holness’ case, which is due to start on October 13.
Speculation has arisen that Brown’s decision could be linked to avoiding a sensitive issue linked to the prime minister that might provide fodder in a general election campaign, with polls expected by September. However, Brown denied this, insisting, “But there can’t be a campaign [issue]. What have I done?”
He noted that the judge had ruled that the IC’s director of investigation had not found actual wrongdoing or conflict of interest on his part.
The IC confirmed on Friday that it was advised by its attorneys that Brown did not file his claim for judicial review by the January 29 deadline and that his lawyer has indicated that Brown would no longer pursue the case.
“The commission will make no further comment on the matter at this time. A full statement will be issued in due course,” said IC Executive Director Greg Christie.
A judicial review allows the courts to examine the legality of decisions. The merits of a decision are not assessed. In Jamaica, persons have to get permission from the court to apply for judicial review.
Brown’s legal challenge stemmed from the IC’s report on Prime Minister Holness’ finances, particularly focusing on the tax filings of Estatebridge Development Limited, a company in which Brown is a shareholder. The report raised concerns about Estatebridge’s interest income in 2021 and its nil tax returns, which were referred to Tax Administration Jamaica.
Brown argued that the findings were unfair and violated natural justice, as he was not given the chance to respond to the tax-related concerns before the report’s public release. The court had allowed him to challenge these tax-related claims, but the review of the potential conflict of interest comments was dismissed.
Justice Althea Jarrett, the same judge who has ruled in the case brought by Holness, ruled that the comments did not adversely affect Brown’s reputation and were not judicially reviewable. She said Stephenson did not assert any actual conflict of interest and that Brown’s arguments suggesting otherwise were inaccurate.
link