Attorney criticises court ruling for entities to comply with IC information requests

 

Data privacy expert and attorney-at-law Chukwuemeka Cameron believes parliamentarians should challenge the Supreme Court's ruling that compels financial institutions to hand over information about public officials to the Integrity Commission. 

 

He argues that the decision sets a dangerous precedent and tramples on privacy rights protected under law. 

 

In the January 17, 2024 ruling, Justice Chester Stamp affirmed that Section 7(2) of the Integrity Commission Act, imposed a legal obligation on individuals and entities to cooperate with the IC by complying with its information requests. 

 

The judgment also addressed Section 42(2) of the Act, which authorises the Director of Information to seek additional information from declarations, including data from financial institutions. 

 

Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court, allowing members of the Donald Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive information, including social security administration data, Mr. Cameron says the move is problematic.

 

"They submitted their statutory declarations because the law said that they must and if you don't, it's a criminal offence. So they just simply write a letter and say, you have a duty to cooperate with me. I'm not conducting an investigation, but just give me all the information you have. That is, in my mind, worse than what Elon Musk sought to do with DOGE, because this is a court sanctioning that you can just write a letter and demand that you get all the information. But I am of the view that the Integrity Commission must have far reaching investigatory powers where they are of the view that there may be some corruption."

 

Mr. Cameron also took issue with the Office of the Attorney General's position, which filed submissions which generally supported the commission's application.

 

"As I understood it, the Attorney General is there primarily to defend and uphold the Constitution, then the laws of the land. But what has happened, it has now been flipped on its head. There's a deeper problem. We have an Information Commissioner who is supposed to defend the rights of the citizens to informational privacy, and a very robust legislation. But that Information Commissioner's powers has not yet been enacted. So the citizens, me and you, are now left exposed," he argued.

 

Mr. Cameron was a guest Thursday on Radio Jamaica's Hotline.