Chuck Cameron, one of the attorneys representing Dr. Andrew Wheatley
Lawyers for former Energy Minister Dr. Andrew Wheatley have filed an application in the Supreme Court for leave for judicial review of conclusions made by the Integrity Commission against their client on certain activities at Petrojam.
The application was filed Tuesday morning.
Dr. Wheatley's legal team is challenging the Commission's claim that he was "less than truthful" and "dishonest" in his representation to the Director of Investigation when he described Sophia Deer as his former technical assistant and that his representation that he divested all matters pertaining to donations within his constituency to the late Councillor Owen Palmer was insincere.
The application filed Tuesday is seeking permission to review the decision of the Integrity Commission to recommend that Dr. Wheatley be prosecuted for perjury.
The lawyers want an order to quash the decision of the Director to refer the representations made by the former minister concerning Sophia Deer to the Director of Corruption Prosecution.
The parties are seeking a declaration that the Director of Investigation has not established, through the evidence presented, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that Dr. Wheatley made a false statement when he said Ms Deer was his former technical assistant.
The lawyers want the Supreme Court to declare that the statement was truthful, as evidenced by Miss Deer's employment contract dated March 15, 2020.
In an interview with Radio Jamaica News Tuesday afternoon, Chuck Cameron, who is leading Dr. Wheatley's legal team, said the team wants the court to "review the unfounded recommendations and conclusions" as they are concerned that the investigators have "abused their power by bringing Dr. Wheatley's reputation into disrepute in the face of exculpatory evidence."
Mr. Cameron wants an order for the Director of Investigation to recommend to the Integrity Commission that Dr. Wheatley be publicly exonerated of allegations concerning acts of impropriety and nepotism. He argued that "legislation itself requires the commission to publicly exonerate one who has been investigated in circumstances where they find now there's no adverse finding on the facts that have been presented."