Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley is requesting more time from the Integrity Commission to ascertain whether “there is any further information available to provide a response in light of the remarkable delay in making this request.”
Rowley’s request was contained in a letter written on his behalf by attorney Faris Al-Rawi in the matter raised by the Integrity Commission about a failure to file a declaration dating back to 2004.
In a letter dated August 19, the Integrity Commission requested Rowley to furnish them with additional information relating to his 2004 Declaration of Income Assets and Liabilities.
Rowley responded on the political platform that he was prepared to go to jail because of the issue.
Rowley had until yesterday to respond formally to the commission.
Al-Rawi, in a letter dated August 27, to the commission, said his firm was in the process of obtaining advice from Senior Counsel as to the request.
He said he told the commission its request was “not only unusual having regard to the fact that the relevant property has already been the subject of extremely widespread and thorough investigation, but that it also with respect to a declaration filed for a period over one decade ago.”
Al-Rawi said the subject property was not purchased by Rowley but independently by his wife, Sharon, and “accordingly, he has already reported what was disclosed to him by her.”
Al-Rawi said: “In the premises, and without prejudice to any possible submission to be made as to the legality of this very belated request, we would require a further period of forty two days to permit our client sufficient time to ascertain whether there is any further information available to provide a response in light of the quite remarkable delay in making this request.”
He told the commission it would note that “this decade old issue has been raised by the commission practically on the eve of the 2015 general election” and the commission was aware that Rowley was “not only a candidate, but also the Political Leader of the main party that is aspiring to office.”
Al-Rawi said accordingly, “while the request is being treated with the seriousness which it deserves, we are certain that the commission would appreciate that the timing is not only highly unusual but also inopportune.”
He said those considerations also give rise to the need for the requested 42 additional days for Rowley.
And Al-Rawi said based on the commission’s letter to Rowley, “the commission is not exercising its powers pursuant to section 33 of the Integrity in Public Life Act Chap 22:01.” He said consequently, “this request is not pursuant to any sort of investigation.”
Al-Rawi said, “the request can therefore only have been made pursuant to section 13 of the Act, that is, a request for further particulars.”
He said: “Accordingly, would you to explain how and why is it that the commission, some eleven years after the relevant period, is now seeking to re-examine our client’s declaration.”