OSC urged to give details on appointment of Dennis Chung to FID

 

A call is being made for the Office of the Services Commission (OSC) to immediately provide details about the controversial appointment of chartered accountant Dennis Chung to the post of Chief Technical Director of the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

 

The call comes from attorney-at-law Kenyatta Powell, who was a guest Sunday on Radio Jamaica's weekly news review programme, That's a Rap. 

 

The Gleaner submitted questions to the OSC on Thursday, inquiring why the requirement for law enforcement experience was removed from the second advertisement and who gave the instructions. 

 

In an email to the Gleaner on Friday, the OSC said the questions will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Access to Information Act, which typically gives public entities an initial 30-day window to respond to requests. 

 

But Mr. Powell says, the delayed response by the OSC will only serve to undermine public trust and will continue to put the life of Mr. Chung at risk.

 

"Give us the facts. Don't wait til 30 days, because you see, if they wait and if they delay, the person who is front and centre in this is the person that you have chosen, you have designated for this post. And so the longer you wait, the more you expose that person to all manner of speculation and stuff like that, right? So come out, lay the facts before us. Say this is the basis on which you made the decision, how we believe that this post actually works, and assure the people that the man applied and he was qualified for the post and so therefore he was appointed," he urged.

 

Still, Mr. Powell is not in support of a call by the parliamentary opposition for the revocation of Mr. Chung's appointment to the FID. 

 

The attorney believes that Mr. Chung could recuse himself from those investigations in his capacity as head of FID. 

 

"This is a country in which we have freedom of speech and we have freedom of expression and those comments cannot be a disqualifier, particularly in situations where if your argument is that there is a potential issue of a conflict of interest because something may come before FID in relation to this matter that is publicly pronounced on, there are mechanisms already in place. It's called a recusal. So again, no evidence before me to suggest that this person would act in any way other than what, you know, the rules of integrity call for," he argued.