18 Degrees North Investigations

The letter of no confidence outlined a series of complaints about the management style and human resources practices of the Senior Director of Clinical Services (SDCS), understood to be Bruce. However, the letter didn’t name him. It’s understood that the letter referred to Bruce as the SDCS because the clinicians contend that the Medical Chief of Staff title is not used in the Jamaican healthcare system. (A Feb. 27, 2026 memo from UHWI Acting CEO Eric Hosin seen by 18° North instructed members of staff to stop using the term Medical Chief of Staff but didn’t say what term should be used instead.)

Among a litany of other issues, the letter references three complaints alleging verbal and physical abuse of staff by the SDCS and criticizes what signatories describe as failures by the hospital to properly investigate the matters. 18° North has not independently verified the allegations, and no findings of wrongdoing have been publicly announced.

Bruce was contacted for comment on the allegations in the letter, but he didn’t respond.

The letter also notes that two court cases involving allegations of abuse and assault by the SDCS are currently before the courts, and therefore the SDCS “should not remain as the public image” of the hospital while those matters are unresolved.

One of those cases stems from a 2007 alleged altercation involving the same neurosurgeon Hunter. Hunter was last May suspended from practicing for a year by the Medical Council of Jamaica (MCJ) — the public body that disciplines doctors — in part because of the voicenote, according to meeting minutes obtained under the Access to Information Act. The MCJ, meanwhile, hasn’t announced any action against Bruce.

Hunter, for his part, told 18° North he hasn’t been served with the September 2025 suit from Bruce and UHWI, but was adamant he wouldn’t be apologizing.

“Justice is still alive in Jamaica, and justice will know what to do with that suit,” Hunter said.

####

Investigative Journalism Is a Public Good. The Jamaican Government Must Treat It Like One.

Kate Chappell — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:51:21 GMT

AI-generated image.

As a journalist acutely aware of the abysmal state of the industry, as soon as I saw the headline of Peter Espeut’s Feb. 6, 2026 column “Needed: Investigative Journalism”, I was invested. Espeut paints a dismal yet accurate picture of the industry: one that is in dire need of the funding, time and commitment necessary to produce quality journalism that holds those in power to account. He also criticizes media houses for their allegiances to political parties and merely churning out press releases, both symptoms of an industry in crisis. But while the problem was accurately portrayed by him, any solutions were lacking.

Before I proceed, I will define my terms. An investigative journalist differs from a “regular” journalist, who may report daily on any number of occurrences, from a fire to a judicial outcome to crime. They tell people what is happening, provide valuable and verified information, and paint a picture of the local, regional and international community.

An investigative journalist is a rare breed, someone who is willing to spend many hours reading documents, conducting surveillance and interviewing dozens, if not hundreds of people. Investigative journalism provides context, and consists of tedious factchecking, reading budget documents and searching archives. It is hard work, and work that is expensive for any outlet given the time it takes to complete an investigation. To spell it out further, the high expenses can be attributed to the journalist’s wages. If an investigation takes years, which many do, it is difficult to convince a media house to commit to the expenditure if there is no guarantee of a particular outcome.

Yet, investigative journalists ultimately “play a watchdog role in society by calling out such illicit activities and bringing them, not only to the attention of the public, but often to the attention of law enforcement and regulatory authorities,” according to a 2022 European Union academic paper.

Investigative journalism, and journalism as a body of work, are both essential pillars of a healthy democracy. They are a “critical part of the checks and balances that make democracy work,” Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has said. Imagine if there were no journalists, no new, reliable information provided to you every day. How could you make decisions? How could you trust authorities? How would you know what is happening in your neighborhood, your country, and the world?

Given the rise of authoritarianism and the prevalence of involvement of big tech in the dissemination of information, this scenario is unfortunately becoming more of a reality.

Therefore, it is necessary to address the source of degradation in the industry.

It is common knowledge that the media landscape has been decimated since the advent of big tech and companies like Google and Facebook. Advertising dollars have disappeared, leading journalists and companies to get creative. Some business models for some legacy media houses, such as subscriptions, are working. (In Jamaica, most of the main legacy media houses are in crisis- Radio Jamaica Limited recently received court approval for a corporate restructuring that will take two radio stations off the air temporarily).

Some journalists are finding success with platforms such as Substack. However, as AI is causing another monumental shift in the ground on which journalism stands, the industry is suffering.

Academia and the private and non-profit sectors have proposed solutions, and while most come with downsides, most are worth trying.

These include government involvement in the provision of news, either through tax subsidies or direct investment; legislating big tech to pay for the journalism they disseminate on their platforms; the establishment of commissions to determine best practices to save the industry; public education campaigns surrounding media literacy and the importance of journalism in a democracy; appealing to large news outlets to work together to develop propositions to advertisers that will become viable again, and relaxing antitrust rules for news organizations so they can negotiate with big tech for appropriate fees for the use of their content. (Some of these suggestions are taken from this UNESCO paper).

In the Jamaican context, some of these suggestions are worth considering. However, this requires the will to support journalism, which requires an increase in media literacy, as well as the acknowledgment of journalism as a public good. Unfortunately, rabid and blind partisanship remains a barrier to this. Partisanship also remains a barrier to the investment of public funds in the provision of journalism, as Jamaicans would likely be suspicious of any news created with public funds. However, as Jamaica matures as a democracy, which it indeed is, this will likely become a viable option, especially as the country’s finances continue their trajectory on a path to more predictability and stability.

A Jamaican solution could involve the creation of a non-profit entity that receives funding from the government or other non-state actors. In order to circumvent inevitable accusations of bias and cronyism, it could be administered by the Press Association of Jamaica or independent, veteran journalists. Its sole mandate would be to support investigative journalism and ultimately root out the corruption that continues to plague the country. Such an entity would likely also attract financial and institutional support of other countries or international partners with similar goals. In order to encourage transparency and eliminate accusations of partisanship, this entity would be subjected to rigorous checks and balances and journalists would be invited to submit applications for projects they would like to pursue. Its annual financial statements would remain in the public realm for scrutiny. Ideally, this non-profit would be responsible for the creation of multiple investigations on an annual basis that focus on accountability and corruption.

In conclusion, I have hoped to fill in the gaps left by Mr. Espeut’s column. I hope to have provided some solutions, that while not immediate, may address the state of the industry on a longer-term basis. The future of Jamaica depends on it.

####

Kate Chappell has, in the past, contributed stories to 18° North.

Opinion: Jamaican Doctors Should Be Scrutinized and Penalized for Not Declaring Conflicts of Interest

Zahra Burton — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:24:56 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

Many years ago, I was sitting in the office of my doctor, who visibly wrestled with which lab to refer me to in order to get some basic bloodwork done. “Where should I send you to?” she openly asked herself.

Sometime before, she had easily referred my mom to a more expensive lab outside her office building for similar basic bloodwork even though one was situated a few steps from her office that offered a substantial discount to patients of doctors in that building — like her.

I sat there puzzled: why is this a headscratcher?

I had two thoughts: Maybe she thinks I don’t have as much money as my mom and would therefore benefit from the savings? Or…did she have a stake in the lab which she didn’t want to disclose and thought better than to refer me there because I am an investigative reporter?

To her credit, she referred me to the cheaper, more convenient lab. However, upon later research, I found that indeed, my doctor, who has now passed away, was professionally connected to the more expensive lab.

I thought to myself, “She should be disclosing this to her patients. My mom paid more for no good reason.” I told my mom but not my doctor because I didn’t want to make her uncomfortable.

But now, years later, I see that what I experienced as a small ethical lapse was actually a window into a bigger problem now surfacing at Jamaica’s premier publicly-funded hospital, University Hospital of the West indies (UHWI).

And just as that incident planted a seed of distrust in me of the medical profession, this bigger issue threatens to undermine public confidence in doctors on a wider scale, which could cause patients to delay seeking care, to disregard medical advice, and to risk eroding their support for vital public health programs.

University Hospital of the West Indies in Kingston. Credit: Lloyd D’Aguilar

Fast Forward To the Problems at UHWI

UHWI, in the country’s capital, Kingston, is where students from other Caribbean countries come to train as doctors and where other local hospitals send patients when they don’t have the technical capacity to care for them.

But at UHWI, patients can wait hours on end to get care. And when care finally arrives, basic medications and supplies are out of stock, leaving doctors little choice but to refer patients off-site.

Some doctors have turned this shortage into opportunity, establishing medical supply companies. One of those companies, as reported by The Gleaner in May 2011 and investigated by the then Office of the Contractor General (OCG), sold to patients, and as I later found from the OCG’s own public contracts database, the hospital, itself. (The OCG oddly found that there was no conflict of interest. It also found that the doctor in question, Peter Johnson— who was then head of radiology at UHWI — didn’t use his position to, directly or indirectly, influence patients’ purchasing behavior.)

The doctors are supposed to declare their conflicts of interest, but a document recently shared with me suggests resistance among doctors in doing so.

The document summarizes concerns stemming from an October 27, 2021 meeting of the UHWI arm of the Association of Government Medical Consultants (AGMC) — the senior doctors. Amid the litany of seemingly serious concerns like organizational structure, chain of command, overdue gratuities, lack of basic equipment and supplies, and having little say in which items are procured, they also seemed resistant to complying with a human resources directive to begin declaring their conflicts of interest — wanting to know, “What the justification is for this requirement.”

They also wanted to know, “What ‘standards’ are they referring to regarding other Medical Institutions demanding this of its employees?”

“Is this a requirement in other public entities?”

Consultants Concerns Stemming From Oct

205KB ∙ PDF file

Excerpt from consultants’ concerns arising from meeting held October 27, 2021

It’s discouraging that in an age where issues of good governance and best practices have been widely circulated, this is Jamaica’s senior educated set —our doctors — that feel they need to ask that question.

Is the concern that disclosure could cost doctors business? Even if it did, the senior doctors, especially, are already well compensated. One UHWI consultant recently showed me a pay stub reflecting monthly gross earnings of roughly $1.55 million (US$9,884), above the US$8,405 that the average Jamaican takes home in a year.

And what about disclosing to us patients? Do they not care what we pay?

If doctors are going to be capitalizing on an opportunity to sell medical supplies that the hospital doesn’t supply, the least they can do is to be upfront and say to the patient, “Here are three options where the devices can be purchased. Bear in mind, I own 50% of Company X, so shop around and do what’s best for you.”

What’s Required by the Medical Council of Jamaica

The Medical Council of Jamaica’s (MCJ) own ethics handbook instructs doctors to “always disclose to your patients any interest you may have in pharmacies and other health care or medical establishments to which you may be referring them.”

The handbook also states that when it comes to government contracts, doctors should disclose for any goods or services being offered for purchase their direct or indirect financial interest — including those of immediate family members — and that non-disclosure may amount to “serious professional misconduct.”

Jamaica’s Public Procurement Act, 2015 also requires procuring entities to exclude participants where a conflict of interest is likely to impair the integrity of proceedings and outlines penalties for unlawful influence or deception in procurement processes, including a fine of up to three million dollars, and, or imprisonment for up to three years.

And yet, earlier this month, 18° North reported that local medical supplies company, Medical Technologies (MEDITECH) Limited, despite having a family connection to UHWI’s chief doctor, Carl Bruce, was able to win tens of millions of dollars in contracts from the hospital between 2008 and 2020—the vast majority with only one bid received.

Neither he nor the hospital answered when asked if he had declared this apparent conflict of interest or recused himself from any discussions involving the company. Three industry insiders —including MEDITECH’s former CEO - have hinted or alleged that Bruce, himself, is financially connected to the company, though Bruce has reportedly denied having any ownership in MEDITECH.

How This Can Affect Patient Care?

From the summary notes, the consultants also noted, “We have heard repeatedly that consultants employed to the UHWI are not only operating in direct competition with the hospital but are often accused of even sabotaging the hospital for their own benefit.”

Translated, Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes told me this could mean —without actually hearing of such allegations — that where UHWI-employed doctors, who also have connections to private companies doing CT scans, for example, may refer patients to that private entity instead of to UHWI, which provides the same CT scan service. Those conflicted doctors, he said, may be motivated to keep UHWI’s machines inoperable for as long as possible rather than report them to be repaired in the shortest possible timeframe.

To claims like this, the UHWI arm of the AGMC in its meeting notes questioned, “Is there any proof of this? If it is hearsay, then those statements are not justified and should be retracted and no further such statements made without offering proof.”

I don’t support making statements that are unproven, but why do we need proof of corruption in order to proactively prevent it? Declaration of conflicts of interest isn’t a punishment. It’s merely a prophylactic.

Already, the public’s confidence in UHWI has been shaken after a damning Auditor General report in January, which found that UHWI had failed to produce procurement documentation for 51 contracts valued at more than $521 million (US$3.3 million) and had misused its tax-exempt status to facilitate imports for several private companies, leading to revenue losses of more than $23 million (US$147,163).

When recently contacted, the UHWI representative of the AGMC since 2019, Dr. Myrton Smith, seemed to understand the importance for doctors to declare their conflicts of interest. “We do not have an issue with that,” he said. He added that the doctors’ main issue from 2021 was the actual wording of the conflict-of-interest declaration form which would “sign away benefits” that had previously been negotiated for doctors who work in the public system to also work privately.

Dr. Myrton Smith, UHWI Representative for the Association of Government Medical Consultants.

However, that concern about the wording was nowhere in the summary notes. And when Smith was asked for a copy of the document to prove that this was in fact the case, he said it was confidential and referred me to the human resources division of UHWI, which never sent the form despite my request.

Also requested of UHWI’s HR Senior Director, Duane Nelson, and the interim CEO, Eric Hosin, was whether the initiative to declare conflicts of interest was ever implemented. Smith said he doesn’t know of any of the doctors who have been on staff having to sign one but was unaware whether this was a requirement for new hires.

Another UHWI senior doctor, who is affiliated with a medical supplies company, told me he doesn’t declare his interest because his bosses don’t — a telling admission about institutional culture. However, he said the company with which he is affiliated also doesn’t do business with the government, nor does he recommend patients to buy supplies from the company.

In my view, annual declarations of conflicts of interest by all doctors— whether senior or junior, whether at UHWI or elsewhere in the private or public sectors —should be implemented at all institutions and should attract penalties if not disclosed to those institutions and to patients.

There should also be a requirement, as in the United States with the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, that pharmaceutical and medical device companies report payments made to physicians. Such reporting should be made public in a searchable database so that patients and the government’s accountability entities like the police, the Integrity Commission and the Auditor General’s Department, can be more informed about doctors’ conflicts. If companies fail to report these payments to doctors, they should be barred from getting government business.

The Integrity Commission may also need to start proactively looking at companies winning state healthcare business to see if they’re connected to doctors and whether there have been any procurement breaches.

The MCJ should require that a sign be hung in each doctor’s office reminding patients that when a doctor makes a referral, the doctors are to immediately and voluntarily disclose whether they have any conflicts.

Until such a system is up and running and to ensure we’re getting impartial medical advice, patients, too, may have to start asking the uncomfortable question the next time we’re referred: “Doc, do you or any of your family members have any financial connection to that business?”

####

Disclaimer: I, through my company, Global Reporters for the Caribbean, the parent company of 18° North, had provided production services to UHWI in or around 2018.

Editor’s Notes:
Dr. Alfred Dawes was also accused of being disingenuous recently by the youth arm of the Jamaica Labour Party, Young Jamaica, after speculation mounted that the company of Opposition MP Dennis Gordon, known as JACDEN, was one of the private companies who benefited from the misuse of UHWI’s tax-exempt status. Dawes, along with his photo, had been listed on JACDEN’s website as a consultant at the time of the Auditor General’s report. However, Dawes has since said he is not affiliated with JACDEN nor has he ever worked for the company, that his image was used without his permission, and that when he found out about it, he asked for his image to be removed. (I couldn’t find the picture when I recently went to the website.) JACDEN, for its part, has maintained its works with UHWI are compliant and didn’t cause or direct any of the cited procurement failings. Opposition Leader Mark Golding said at a Jan. 29 news conference that he had spoken to MP Gordon who maintains that he had done nothing wrong.

Fresh Leadership Crisis Emerges at UHWI as Doctors and Nurses Move Against Chief Clinician, Dr. Carl Bruce

Zahra Burton — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 01:32:21 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

A fresh management crisis may be unfolding at Jamaica’s premier publicly-funded hospital, the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), as senior doctors and other clinical staff seek to remove the institution’s chief doctor, Carl Bruce.

The development comes weeks after UHWI’s Chief Executive Officer Fitzgerald Mitchell proceeded on accrued leave amid a police fraud squad investigation into procurement breaches flagged in an Auditor General’s report made public on Jan. 14, 2026.

Now, attention has shifted to clinical leadership following a Jan. 16, 2026 letter of no confidence submitted to the hospital’s board by senior clinicians.

The letter outlined a litany of complaints against Bruce, the hospital’s Medical Chief of Staff (MCS), mostly related to his management style and human resource practices that led to an initial meeting with management in January.

Now, coming out of another meeting on Friday morning involving dozens of consultants and nursing staff, interim CEO Eric Hosin, Board Chairman Patrick Hylton, and University of the West Indies, Mona Principal Densil Williams, 18° North understands that UHWI management has requested two additional weeks to investigate the complaints raised by clinical staff about Bruce.

Dr. Carl Bruce, Medical Chief of Staff at the University Hospital of the West Indies speaking at a groundbreaking ceremony of a construction project at the hospital held Aug. 7, 2025.

The letter of no confidence signed by 13 clinical heads, which is more than half of the full cohort of the hospital’s clinical heads, outlined a series of complaints against the Senior Director of Clinical Services (SDCS), understood to be Bruce. They refer to him as the SDCS because the clinicians contend that the Medical Chief of Staff title is not used in the Jamaican healthcare system—a claim that hasn’t been independently verified by 18° North.

The later stated, “We wish to make it known that we have lost all confidence in the ability of the SDCS/“MCS” to represent the interests of the staff and do not wish him to continue to do so.” It continued, “It is impossible to build the high-performance team required to advance the UHWI without the engagement, empowerment and motivation of the staff.”

Call For Carl Bruce's Resignation 19 01 2026 Doc 22

7.89MB ∙ PDF file

Among the allegations are claims that the SDCS made unilateral decisions without consulting clinical leadership, including the reported redirection of approximately $75 million raised through the Sagicor Sigma “Legacy Run” for the hospital’s pediatric unit to other areas of the institution without consultation with the head of pediatrics.

Doctors also contend that the SDCS bears at least some responsibility for operational problems that have contributed to persistent overcrowding in the Accident and Emergency department, which they say stems partly from insufficient bed availability for medical admissions.

Additional complaints outlined in the letter include the cancellation of senior residents’ contracts without consultation with department heads; proposed changes to contracts affecting unionized doctors; refusal to authorize certain payments owed to junior staff; and the removal of equipment while in use, allegedly for treatment of the SDCS’ private patients.

Bruce has been contacted for comment on the allegations in the letter, but he hasn’t yet responded to an email sent on Friday afternoon.

The letter further references three complaints alleging verbal and physical abuse of staff and criticizes what signatories describe as failures by the hospital to properly investigate the matters. 18° North has not independently verified the allegations, and no findings of wrongdoing have been publicly announced.

Two clinical heads who attended Friday’s meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity told 18° North that the alleged longstanding pattern of verbal and physical abuse by Bruce and the “toxic environment” were strongly emphasized during the meeting.

According to the doctors, the board chairman told staff that due process must be followed and requested two additional weeks to investigate the claims of alleged abuse before reconvening with clinicians. Chairman Hylton didn’t answer a call seeking comment. Principal Williams didn’t answer a WhatsApp message. Interim CEO Hosin was contacted this evening via email. Any meaningful response received will be reflected in a subsequent update.

In the meantime, the anonymous clinical heads said clinical staff will boycott meetings convened or chaired by Bruce.

“We will no longer be allowing him to lead us in his current role as Senior Director of Clinical Services,” one of the clinical heads stated.

####

Editing help from ChatGPT.

Records Point to Family Link Between UHWI Medical Chief of Staff and MEDITECH, Raising Conflict-of-Interest Questions

Zahra Burton — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 21:56:41 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

Dr. Carl Bruce, Medical Chief of Staff at the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), appears to be related to a principal of Medical Technologies (MEDITECH) Limited, a medical equipment supplier that has done tens of millions of Jamaican dollars’ worth of business with the state-supported hospital, based on records reviewed by 18° North.

The apparent family relationship, identified through a genealogy search at the Registrar General’s Department (RGD) and other sources, raises questions about whether Bruce had a duty to declare a potential conflict of interest, given his administrative role and board position at UHWI. It also revives longstanding questions about who controls MEDITECH, and whether Bruce has or had any financial connection to the company of which he has denied ownership.

Dr. Carl Bruce, Medical Chief of Staff at the University Hospital of the West Indies speaking at a groundbreaking ceremony of a construction project at the hospital held Aug. 7, 2025.

Questions about MEDITECH’s ownership structure date back to a 2016 share dispute in court, where it emerged that the company had a “silent partner.”

An interlocutory injunction granted in that case — before the substantive issues were heard — restrained the parties from publicly disclosing the silent partner’s identity before the trial commenced, citing a prior agreement between the parties due to a “potential conflict of interest.” The injunction didn’t explain the nature of that conflict and only referred to the individual as “A”.

The injunction described the silent partner as a lender “or” investor, which suggests the financial relationship may not necessarily be one of shareholding.

It further described the individual as a cousin of Trudy-Ann Ricketts, a shareholder and director of MEDITECH.

Family ties

At the time of MEDITECH’s incorporation in 2007, Ricketts listed a Pepper, St. Elizabeth address when her ownership of 5,000 of the company’s 50,000 issued shares was recorded.

Bruce, a neurosurgeon, also appears to have family ties to Pepper, with the funeral of his mother, Phyllis Adina Bennett, being held there in 2024, according to a funeral program obtained by 18⁰ North.

Genealogy records at the RGD reviewed by 18° North indicate that Bennett was the aunt of Michael Ricketts, Trudy-Ann Ricketts’ father, which would make Bruce and Ricketts first cousins once removed.

Ricketts became a MEDITECH shareholder and director at age 19, and, at the time, was listed as a venture capitalist and businesswoman. According to her LinkedIn profile — since removed — she graduated four years later in 2011 from the University of Technology, Jamaica with a bachelor’s degree in business administration. Up to January 2026, her profile listed her as the office manager of MEDITECH.

The ownership question

The injunction gave two competing narratives about how MEDITECH was formed and financed and why its ownership structure remains opaque.

According to an affidavit cited in the injunction from Athol Hamilton — another MEDITECH director and holder of 5,000 shares — he, having a background as a biologist, and Ricketts were seeking a business opportunity around 2007 when “one of Trudy’s cousins,” also described as his longtime friend, suggested opportunities in medical supplies.

Hamilton further stated that the individual later advanced funds to MEDITECH but didn’t want to become a shareholder due to concerns about a potential conflict of interest given his status at the time. As a result, it was agreed between himself, the silent partner and Winfield Boban — a business associate of the silent partner — that Boban would hold some shares on the silent partner’s behalf as security for the advances.

Reached by phone, Hamilton said he didn’t want to speak with 18° North.

Photo of Winfield Boban taken from his LinkedIn page.

According to company documents, those 40,000 shares — representing the majority of MEDITECH’s 50,000 issued shares at the time — were in 2008 registered in the name of Boban, an American medical devices executive. In 2009, the shares were then transferred to Jamaican attorney Donovan Williams, who became the Member of Parliament for Kingston Central in 2020 and is now State Minister in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

Minister of State in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and Kingston Central Member of Parliament, Donovan Williams. Photo credit: Jamaica Labour Party.

Boban, who sued MEDITECH in 2016 over ownership of the shares, offered a different account, claiming he, Hamilton, Ricketts and the silent partner agreed to form the company. He told 18⁰ North in 2025 that the company was “my concept” and that Williams was merely holding the shares on his behalf because he wasn’t living in Jamaica at the time. It’s not clear how the share dispute was ultimately resolved as the Supreme Court told 18⁰ North the case is sealed.

In May 2025, Williams, in a publicly-released statement, acknowledged holding the shares in trust and said his lawyers were making arrangements to transfer them to the beneficial owner following the resolution of a share dispute in 2022. A court filing in a separate case involving the Integrity Commission to which all MPs have to report their financial holdings, did reveal that Williams had disclosed holding the MEDITECH shares on Boban’s behalf in 2020, but this may have been before the share dispute case was concluded.

Excerpt from affidavit of Craig Beresford, the then Director of Information and Complaints at the Integrity Commission in a court case with Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness outlining that Donovan Williams had declared that he was holding 40,000 MEDITECH shares on Boban’s behalf.

As of January 2026, Williams had surrendered the 40,000 shares back to the company, though they haven’t been reallocated to anyone. There was also a Beneficial Ownership form filed, according to the Companies Office. However, information from that document, while accessible to government procuring entities upon written request, can’t be accessed by journalists or the general public.

Government contracts

MEDITECH drew public attention last year after Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes alleged that the company overcharged the government’s South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) for a neurosurgical drill — a claim MEDITECH denied and for which it sued Dawes for defamation. (Dawes claims he was never served.)

18⁰ North later reported that MEDITECH had secured more than 220 government contracts worth over J$200 million (US$1.8 million) between 2008 and 2020 from various public bodies, including SERHA, according to the Integrity Commission’s Quarterly Contract Awards database. Thirty-five of those contracts were from UHWI worth $68 million (US$625,345), and more than 80% of those UHWI contracts were awarded through processes in which only a single bid was received — a practice permitted under Jamaican law in certain circumstances.

It’s not known if MEDITECH continues to be a supplier to the hospital because the database doesn’t go past 2020.

Allegations and responses

Following the revelation that MEDITECH had a silent partner, a May 2025 voicenote broadcast on Andre Stephens’ PDTV YouTube program and purportedly attributed to fellow neurosurgeon Dr. Roger Hunter alleged that Bruce was MEDITECH’s “substantive owner.”

Hunter, who has accused Bruce of assault in a separate legal matter, told 18° North that his assertions of Bruce’s ownership were based on his interactions in the industry. He also said Ricketts told him she was Bruce’s niece. (Ricketts is around 19 years younger than Bruce.) Ricketts didn’t respond to questions about the alleged family relationship or whether Bruce played any role in MEDITECH’s business with the government.

Bruce is being represented in the assault case by Williams, according to the Kingston and St. Andrew Parish Court. But, according to his co-counsel Tom Tavares-Finson — another government parliamentarian —he is now out of the matter.

It was following Hunter’s voicenote in May 2025 that 18⁰ North called Boban directly to ask about the MEDITECH share dispute case.

While not offering any documents, Boban hinted that Bruce was involved in the case.

Asked about the status of the shares and why they weren’t yet returned to him and why they were then still in Williams’ name, Boban told 18⁰ North to ask Bruce’s attorney, whom he suggested was Williams. However, when later asked to clarify why he described Williams as Bruce’s attorney if Boban was presumably paying Williams to hold shares on his behalf, Boban, through his lawyer, issued a statement saying his earlier remarks didn’t constitute an official response, though the lawyer didn’t deny what Boban initially said.

The statement added that Boban has had no involvement in the management, operations or decision-making of MEDITECH after 2013 when he resigned as CEO. Boban, thereafter, established another medical supplies company, Surgix Jamaica Ltd., which competes with MEDITECH.

A former employee of Surgix who requested anonymity told 18⁰ North that Boban had repeatedly mentioned to staff members, including the former employee, when he had competitive issues with MEDITECH that Bruce was the primary decisionmaker and owner of MEDITECH. The source said Boban also mentioned that Bruce was involved in the shareholder lawsuit he filed against MEDITECH in 2016, and that Ricketts told the source directly that she was Bruce’s niece.

In a statement issued on May 26, 2025, UHWI CEO Fitzgerald Mitchell defended Bruce, saying, “Dr Bruce is not a shareholder, nor a director in any company that compromises his duties at the UHWI,” according to a report by the Jamaica Observer.

Mitchell is currently on three months’ accrued leave while Jamaica’s police force conducts an investigation following a report by the Auditor General, made public on Jan. 13, 2026, which found a slew of procurement breaches at UHWI. Mitchell said “no response” when asked to comment on the report.

The Observer also reported that in the same statement Bruce said: “I do not own, and have never held, shares in Medical Technologies Limited, nor are any shares being held on my behalf, either directly or indirectly, by anyone associated with the entity or otherwise.

“In my professional capacity, I have provided consultation and conducted due diligence in the health sector from time to time. Any attempt to malign my work or disseminate false narratives linking me to ownership of Medical Technologies Limited is defamatory and will be subject to appropriate legal recourse.”

Bruce did file a declaration action against Hunter in September 2025. However, as of Jan. 15, 2026, the Supreme Court said the specifics of the claim haven’t yet been uploaded to its electronic system. 18° North reached out to the court’s media liaison officer on Feb. 6, 2026 to see if the case had been uploaded, but didn’t yet receive a response.

At a groundbreaking of a new building at UHWI on Aug. 7, 2025, 18⁰ North asked Bruce directly if he was behind MEDITECH — as opposed to whether he owned shares — but he wouldn’t answer the question. Later asked by email if he was a lender or paid consultant to MEDITECH, he also didn’t answer.

At the same groundbreaking, UHWI’s Mitchell told 18° North that he hadn’t examined whether Bruce was a consultant to MEDITECH, saying he hadn’t seen Bruce’s quote referenced in the press release. *18° North has not been able to independently verify the veracity of some of the Observer’s reporting from that release.

Mitchell also said UHWI’s legal team had reviewed whether Bruce was connected to MEDITECH and concluded that “there is no truth in that.”

Oversight questions

On May 28, 2025, two days after UHWI’s statement, the Medical Council of Jamaica (MCJ), the public body that disciplines doctors, voted to suspend Hunter from practice for one year, citing the voicenote among the reasons, according to meeting minutes obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Asked whether the Council had investigated Hunter’s claim about Bruce’s alleged involvement in MEDITECH, MCJ Registrar Jean Williams-Johnson said the matter was not one the Council would act on, describing it as an issue “being investigated by the hospital.”

That stance contrasts with the Council’s own ethics manual, which requires doctors to declare any direct or indirect financial interest in any goods or services — including that of immediate family members — before participating in discussion which would lead to the purchase by a public authority of those goods or services. Failure to do so, it states, may amount to “serious professional misconduct.”

Jamaica’s Public Sector Procurement Regulations, 2008, which were in effect up until 2019, also requires public officers who are directly or indirectly involved in procurement proceedings to declare potential conflicts of interest and personal relationships and refrain from taking part in any decision-making or implementation of contracts where such a conflict exists. A personal relationship was defined in that law as one by blood or marriage up to the third civil degree.

The more recent Public Procurement Act, 2015, now in effect, also requires procuring entities to exclude participants where a conflict of interest is likely to impair the integrity of proceedings and outlines penalties for unlawful influence or deception in procurement processes. There has been no finding that these provisions were breached in relation to Bruce, MEDITECH or UHWI.

Neither Bruce nor UHWI answered an email as to whether Bruce had disclosed his apparent family relationship with Ricketts to UHWI or recused himself from any discussions involving MEDITECH. As Medical Chief of Staff in charge of clinical care at the hospital for around ten years, he’s an ex-officio member of the UHWI board of management, which sometimes interrogates procurement decisions, though it’s not known if any of MEDITECH’S contracts with UHWI were ever discussed at the board level.

Ultimately, there is no hard evidence in the public domain that Bruce had or has a financial interest in MEDITECH. And according to the Observer, he denies owning the company. But with three industry insiders alleging or suggesting he’s behind the company —including MEDITECH’s former CEO —plus a genealogy search pointing to a family link, investigators probing procurement breaches at UHWI may therefore need to determine whether Bruce had a duty to declare this apparent relationship, whether he declared it, and also whether he is financially connected to MEDITECH.

####

Editor’s Notes:

Editing help from ChatGPT.

The exchange rate used was J$108.74:US$1, the average of the average sell rates on the Bank of Jamaica’s website for the years 2008 to 2020 during which government contracts were awarded to MEDITECH.

*The May 26, 2025 press release confirmed to 18° North to be written by UHWI’s communications representative, Kerry-Ann Robinson, only has some of the information reported by the Observer. Robinson said she couldn’t attest to the genuineness of another release that was circulating on social media from where it appears the Observer took quotes purportedly attributed to Bruce. That release said Bruce isn’t a director in any company that compromises his duties at UHWI, while the Observer reported that it stated he wasn’t a shareholder or director in any such company. Bruce was, though, asked by 18° North via email if he disputed the quotes reported by the Observer, and he didn’t respond.

In January 2026, MEDITECH increased its authorized share capital from 100,000 to 400,000 shares.

Or show your appreciation by making a one-time donation here:

One-Time Donation

Thanks for being a reader of 18 Degrees North Investigations!

Who Owns MEDITECH? State Minister Donovan Williams No Longer Listed as Majority Shareholder

Zahra Burton — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 18:19:41 GMT

Donovan Williams, Minister of State in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and MP for Kingston Central. Photo taken from his Facebook page.

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

Minister of State in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and Member of Parliament for Kingston Central Donovan Williams is no longer listed as the majority shareholder of Medical Technologies (MEDITECH) Ltd.

The 40,000 shares he held have been surrendered back to the company, based on a check made at the Companies Office of Jamaica by 18⁰ North on Feb. 2, 2026.

MEDITECH drew public attention last year after Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes alleged that the company overcharged the government’s South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) for a neurosurgical drill, which MEDITECH denied doing. The company, along with Williams, sued Dawes for defamation. Dawes, meanwhile, claims he was never served.

Williams had maintained that he, being an attorney, was only holding the 40,000 MEDITECH shares in trust, and that, following the resolution of a shareholder dispute in 2022, his attorneys had prepared the necessary documents to facilitate the passing of the shares to the beneficial owner.

However, he didn’t disclose who that beneficial owner is, prompting questions as to who exactly the government has been doing business with and whether any procurement laws have been breached?

Between 2008 and 2020, 18⁰ North later reported, MEDITECH had received 223 government contracts worth J$201 million (US$1.85 million) from various state entities — two-thirds of which had received only one tender, based on information contained in the Integrity Commission’s Quarterly Contract Awards database.

As PM Holness Bemoaned Images of Desperate Jamaicans, His Government Routinely Fed Just 1 in 4 Hurricane Victims and Reduced Food Deliveries Going into Christmas

Zahra Burton — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:25:09 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

A group of hurricane victims on Dec. 13 that had come down to the main road from their community in the hill of Grass Piece district in Culloden, Westmoreland pleading for help.

Since Hurricane Melissa made landfall in Jamaica on Oct. 28, the government has only provided food packages routinely to a quarter of the more than 600,000 persons that it says are in need.

That’s according to an analysis by 18º North based on disclosures by the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) — the state entity leading the relief effort —that about 396,000 packages had been disbursed as of its Dec. 24 posting, and each package is supposed to serve four people and last, at most, five days.

The situation has been particularly paltry over the last two weeks heading into Christmas.

For one day last week, ODPEM, which falls under the Office of the Prime Minister, reported delivering as few as 625 packages to 74 communities, and despite queries, it hasn’t explained why.

Opinion: As Chair, T&T's PM Persad-Bissessar Once Enforced CARICOM Discipline. Now It's Time For Jamaica's Holness to Enforce It On Her.

Pearce Robinson — Sun, 21 Dec 2025 14:29:38 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness (left). Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (right).

On the night of Dec. 18, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar addressed Trinidad and Tobago citizens with a demand for compliance built around U.S. visa vulnerability. She described public criticism of Washington as “the height of hypocrisy and unkindness,” and asked, “Which Trini wants their visa cut? So behave yourself.” Speaking at a UNC Christmas function, she warned, “Careful you don’t end up like Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica… bad-mouthing the US and guess what happened… all their visas rescinded now.”

She grounded national security in U.S. protection — “Understand where our help comes from. Understand who can protect and defend Trinidad and Tobago.” She stated that “right now, there is only one country in the world” capable of doing so.

Those remarks placed Trinidad and Tobago inside a regional security moment unfolding under the CARICOM chairmanship of Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness. As Chair, Holness convenes heads of government, sets the bloc’s political agenda, coordinates common positions, and carries responsibility for preserving the Caribbean’s Zone of Peace posture as member states take decisions with basin-wide security and economic consequences with potential fallout to industries like tourism, a main driver of Caribbean economies like Jamaica’s.

The Caribbean now stands at a crossroads.

FREE: Jamaican Government Withholds Names of Hurricane Melissa’s Dead and Missing, Raising Doubts About Official Toll

Zahra Burton — Sat, 29 Nov 2025 21:35:09 GMT

This article was first published on Nov. 29, 2025. It’s now being made available for free in the public interest.

The Jamaican government has announced it won’t be publishing the names of the missing or the dead from Hurricane Melissa.

At a Nov. 26 press briefing, the head of the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM), Commander Alvin Gayle, was asked by 18º North why is it that the police can routinely publish the names of Jamaicans who go missing, but in the case of those who went missing after the storm, the government has chosen not to release the names?

Gayle answered that for both the missing and the dead, “The police and the families are treating with those names as per their own protocols. So, we will not be publishing these names.”

However, he didn’t say what those protocols were and why he wouldn’t be releasing the names. The Jamaica Constabulary Force wouldn’t comment.

Screengrab from the Nov. 26 Hurricane Melissa relief press briefing.

The Toll of those Missing and Dead in Jamaica

The government has determined that there were 45 confirmed deaths from the hurricane, which when broken down by parish, show that St. Elizabeth and Westmoreland recorded the most at 18 and 15, respectively. Thirty-two deaths were “undetermined,” and 16 persons are missing.

Snapshot of Hurricane Melissa’s effect as of Nov. 28, including number of dead and missing, from ODPEM’s website.

However, since the passage of the storm on Oct. 28, there have been doubts about the number of deaths.

Those concerns were elevated when Member of Parliament for Westmoreland Eastern, Dr. Dayton Campbell, told the House of Representatives on Nov. 4 that he knew of 25 deaths in his constituency alone at a time when the government’s official count for the whole country was 32.

Campbell also revealed that while funeral homes came for bodies in some instances, community members had buried bodies in other instances.

To that, Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness responded that the accurate account of deaths was “of particular concern” to him, and he pledged on the same day that every Jamaican who died as a result of the storm would be counted.

“We will recover all bodies, even if we have to exhume, and we will go through a process of proper identification and, where possible, determination of death. The science is there to do it, and we will do it,” Holness said. “We have to account for every Jamaican who has lost their life because we have to account to their families as well, and we have to get a full understanding of the impact of the disaster.”

However, it’s not clear how Holness will deliver on that promise if the names aren’t made public, and how the public will know for sure that he has delivered on his pledge.

TVJ News, for example, reported on Nov. 26 that it had tried unsuccessfully to confirm whether hurricane victim Basil Clarke’s body, which was exhumed that day, had been included in the official death count, since his family had reported his death to the police before burying him in their backyard. The police had reportedly been unable to handle the body themselves in the early days after the storm.

Cropped screengrab from TVJ News’ Nov. 26 report.

Basil Clarke, 55. Photo contributed.

At a Nov. 19 press conference —in Holness’ presence — 18º North asked ODPEM for a list of names of those who died so the press could crosscheck who is on the list compared to the numbers being reported and so that family members could determine if their loved ones were on it. However, Commander Gayle declined.

Gayle merely answered, “We have it, we have cross-referenced it through our police investigations and so on, so we’re fully confident in those matters. They also investigated. But we’ll leave those matters in terms of putting the names out there for the families to treat with.” What exactly the families are supposed to do isn’t clear. Prime Minister Holness, who was sitting right in front of him at the time, didn’t object to what Gayle said.

Names Released In Other National Tragedies

While 18º North couldn’t find a list of names of victims from other hurricanes in Jamaica, there are instances of names recorded from other national tragedies.

For example, within days of the Kendal train crash that killed nearly 200 people on Sept. 1, 1957 —before Independence from Britain in 1962 —the names of a few of the victims, their ages and addresses were published in The Daily Gleaner, based on a clipping included in a collective of the crash by the National Library of Jamaica. Many decades later in September 2025, the government unveiled a monument bearing 177 of the names.

Old newspaper clipping of the victims of the Kendal train crash included in a collective by the National Library of Jamaica.

Monument unveiled in September 2025 bearing 177 names of the victims of the Kendal crash. Photo credit: Jamaica Observer

A memorial erected in downtown, Kingston also bears the names and ages of more than 30 lives lost in two separate gun battles between the security forces and alleged gunmen in May 1997 and July 2001.

Memorial in downtown, Kingston of people who were killed amid clashes between gunmen and security forces in 2001 and 1997.

And later, from the 2010 operation by the security forces in West Kingston in the hunt for drug lord Christopher “Dudus” Coke who was wanted in the United States, there was also a list with the identities, ages, occupations and addresses of the 76 people killed. That list was ultimately used by 18º North in a 2015 documentary to prove that there were more victims than the official count.

Screengrab from an 18º North documentary of the list of persons that were killed during the hunt for drug lord Christopher “Dudus” Coke, who was wanted by the U.S. in 2010.

Why is Accuracy of the Death Toll Important?

An accurate account of how many people were killed, how they died and where they died isn’t just important for the record, given the history-making nature of Melissa, but it also helps reveal actions that can be improved upon so there can be better disaster planning in the future to keep people safe.

For instance, a NBC News examination of death records obtained from local and state authorities after Hurricane Ian, which made landfall in Florida on September 28, 2022 and became one of the deadliest to hit the U.S. in 20 years, revealed that the highest number of deaths in that state — 61 of the at least 148 people that perished — were from Lee County, which took a day longer than neighboring counties to issue a mandatory evacuation order.

In addition, most of those who died were over age 65, which could signal a need for more to be done to help the elderly in the future.

A database published by the Fort Myers-based News-Press of about 100 of Ian’s victims in Florida lists county; date of death or when the body was discovered; age; probable cause of death and manner of death; and a button where you can click for more details like gender and the specifics of how the person died. Of note, the database doesn’t list names.

Excerpt of database bearing details of around 100 deaths from Hurricane Ian published on the News-Press website.

Detailed look at the first entry in the database listing more specifics of the circumstances of death. From News-Press’ website.

However, within three weeks after the hurricane, News-Press published an article with some obituaries on its website with pictures, names, ages and the circumstances of how they died from the storm, citing in some cases, an office of the medical examiner as the source.

Screengrab of one of the Hurricane Ian victims from the News-Press website.

Ethical and Legal Considerations in Releasing Names

Joel Reidenberg, who teaches law at Fordham University in New York and has examined the issue of releasing the names of those missing or unaccounted for in natural disasters told KUOW public radio in Seattle in 2014 that the practice of reporting names of the missing after disasters is ad hoc. As to whether to list names, he said some of the considerations are: What’s the benefit to the victim? What are the potential risks of publicly releasing the name of the individual thought to be missing at that time, like a battered spouse who has a protection order against an abusive partner? What’s the risk that the names on the list may cause further confusion and distress to the families unnecessarily? Reidenberg also advised in a report he co-authored that entities consider local laws in their jurisdiction.

In Jamaica, there’s an inherent right to privacy embedded in the Constitution and the Data Protection Act (DPA), which passed in 2020.

However, according to two Jamaican data protection experts, who didn’t want to be named, in the case of natural disasters and life-or-death situations where the sharing of information may be important to try and save them, the DPA doesn’t prohibit personal data, including names of missing persons, from being made public.

Under the law, the experts say the information of deceased persons may also be shared in matters of a public nature in the public interest like Hurricane Melissa given the scale of the disaster and its importance to the general public and the functions for entities like ODPEM to identify and analyze the disaster.

One of them cautioned, however, that the government should avoid publishing more information than needed based on principles in the DPA like data minimization; accuracy; and making sure that the manner of disclosure doesn’t cause unnecessary harm or distress. So, names and general demographic descriptors might be acceptable while cause of death requires more thought because some details might reveal or imply sensitive health information.

Details of death 8 in the Hurricane Ian victims database published by News-Press seeming to indicate that even though the victim had drowned she had also consumed an excessive amount of alcohol.

On causes of death, ODPEM has not defined what’s considered a hurricane death. The Jamaican state entity has also not said whether it has been or will start including indirect deaths — which are those not directly related to the storm but would otherwise not have happened if not for the storm.

Should the 10 persons that have died as of Nov. 26 from an outbreak of leptospirosis since Melissa, for instance, be added to the death count?

Until officials disclose the names of Hurricane Melissa’s victims or justify their refusal for providing more identifying information, families like Clarke’s in Westmoreland have no way of knowing whether their grief was ever formally acknowledged, which can breed hurt and suspicion. And when a prime minister can publicly claim concern about the death toll even as his government blocks the details that can help confirm it, suspicion may be less about cynicism to the reasonable person and more about common sense.

####

If you’ve read this full post, you’ll probably enjoy the benefits of being a paid subscriber, which allow you to get full access to these kinds of articles FIRST and to our FULL archive of stories. So, ACT NOW. Become a paid subscriber today!

Opinion: As Hurricane Melissa Fast-Tracks Jamaica’s Aid and Procurement Processes, It Should Speed Up Transparency and Oversight Too.

A New Boost For Transparency, But More Clarity Still Needed on Jamaica's Hurricane Funding

Zahra Burton — Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:03:25 GMT

The Jamaican government has taken a step toward greater transparency in government spending, though gaps in information remain.

This follows a Nov. 11 op-ed published by 18° North that had called for emergency legislation to loosen disclosure restrictions in the Access to Information Act (ATI Act) and the Integrity Commission Act (IC Act) so that information regarding hurricane aid could flow more freely.

While the request was largely dismissed at a press briefing that same day by Information Minister Dana Morris Dixon, who said the focus now is on getting food and shelter to people, not legislative changes, another arm of government may be helping facilitate the release of information in a different way.

On Nov. 13, the Office of Public Procurement Policy (OPPP) within the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service instructed all public entities to upload all notices of emergency contracts to its Government of Jamaica Electronic Procurement (GOJEP) portal within 30 days of a contract award.

Guidance Note 2 2025 Procurement In Situations Of Emergency Or Extreme Urgency

574KB ∙ PDF file

A ‘Serious Regression’ In Jamaica’s Fight Against Corruption

This is significant because emergency procurement will likely dominate early Hurricane Melissa spending, so this requirement could provide the first real window into how relief money is being disbursed via contracts. Updates to the only other similar centralized database kept by the Integrity Commission called the Quarterly Contract Awards (QCA) database is no longer being made public because of a clause in the law that has yet to be rectified by parliament.

The Nov. 13 guidance from the OPPP is grounded in law, so disclosure isn’t discretionary.

An amendment earlier this year to the Public Procurement Act, 2015 mandates that a notice of all emergency contracts be given by procuring entities “within one month after the emergency contract was awarded, in the manner specified in guidelines issued by the Office.” It just so happens that those guidelines are now being shared with public entities.

In addition to the mandatory publication via GOJEP, public bodies may also publish notices of emergency contracts on their own websites. So in theory, the public should soon be able to see a description of what’s being procured, contractors, dollar amounts, justifications and timelines for hurricane-related work.

Click on Contract Award Notices when on the GOJEP.gov.jm website.

Then filter by procurement method, procuring entity and date. Click on the PDF Notice of Award.

Will There Be Compliance?

But whether this level of disclosure will take place in practice is another story.

That’s because, though GOJEP has been up since 2022 for contracts using other procurement methods like single source, restricted bidding, national and international competitive tendering, the site has been underused.

Despite penalties for noncompliance—including fines or imprisonment — only 8,882 contract notices have been posted since inception, which is an average of 2,220 each year. Contrast that with the un-updated version of the Integrity Commission’s QCA database, and it has 179,461 contracts reported between 2006 and 2020, an average of 11,964 annually. (Updates to the QCA database stopped being shared with the public in 2020 though government entities are still required to submit details of contracts they award for the IC’s internal use.)

Transparency Extends Beyond Procurement

Transparency also extends beyond procurement. It’s also about what’s coming in and going out to various public entities before any procurement occurs.

At a Nov. 13 press briefing, it was revealed that over J$540 million (US$3.375 million) had been deposited in the accounts of Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) through the government’s official relief platform.

There was also US$1.13 million and J$55.85 million received in credit card donations.

Previously, the public was also told about payouts of US$150 million (J$24 billion) from the World Bank-issued catastrophe bond and US$91.9 million (J$14.7 billion) from the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), mechanisms that were put in place prior to Melissa as part of Jamaica's disaster financing.

Assuming these are all separate amounts, that’s J$39.5 billion or US$246.7 million when summed together, only 4% of the estimated US$6 billion in estimated damage on the low end. But the government hasn’t explained whether these funds are overlapping, how it plans to make up the shortfall, where the disaster financing tranches are being held, and which ministries or entities will ultimately have control.

Press briefings have been helpful but sometimes provide incomplete information. For example, to a request to know the allocations that have been made to each ministry for Hurricane Melissa expenses, which Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness had said was to have been discussed at a Nov. 6 Cabinet meeting, Morris Dixon on Nov. 11 said what was discussed were indicative amounts of damage by ministry and that “there’s been no full allocations as yet.” And yet, two days later at the Nov. 13 press briefing, other ministers announced Cabinet-approved spending on roads and water trucking by municipalities. One of them giving the preliminary aggregate amount for roads of J$5 billion. Even Morris Dixon, herself, wearing her other hat of Minister of Education that day, announced grants of J$300,000 to J$1 million approved by Cabinet to affected schools for cleanup, but didn’t give the total amount allocated.

There’s no point in 18° North asking the Cabinet under the ATI Act for all the allocations there have been so far because Cabinet documents are exempt, so the public has to just wait for disclosure.

In a vlog post, journalist and talk show host Dionne Jackson Miller criticized the government for treating transparency as secondary to relief arguing that “it has to go hand in hand with oversight and accountability.” She said to 18° North’s question that even if the government doesn’t want to get bogged down with legislative amendments right now, a better response from Morris Dixon would have been “We won’t need those kinds of emergency changes anyway because the government is going to be pushing out all the information we need in the interest of transparency so we can see what is really going on.”

While the Auditor General’s Department announced recently that it will be doing real-time auditing of the relief funds, there’s no better audit than the watchful eyes of the public who is able to immediately tell whether work was done and whether value for money was achieved — and of course whether there was fairness in how the contracts were awarded.

Clarity is also needed from the Minister of Finance Fayval Williams about what has been collected and disbursed so far and how monies will flow and from where.

Before the hurricane, in June, Williams had revealed that Jamaica had J$130.6 billion (US$816.3 million) in disaster financing coverage but only itemized J$96.5 billion (US$603.1 million) of that amount when she spoke after the hurricane on Oct. 30, so she still needs to explain that substantial gap (she did speak about contingent loans from international partners but didn’t itemize those amounts).

Breakdown of Jamaica’s layers of disaster financing given by Finance Minister Fayval Williams at a Oct. 30 press briefing.

The public also has no clarity on how much of the US$6 - US$8 billion estimated national damage is insured, what portion the government will need to finance directly and the extent to which Jamaica will have to draw on multilateral loans — including a US$285 million (J$45.6 billion) IDB contingent credit facility, which Williams had revealed was part of the country’s pre-planned disaster financing coverage. With the IMF recently confirming that Kingston has not sought its support, it remains unclear what the government’s financing strategy will be or how new borrowing would affect Jamaica’s debt trajectory.

The absence of comprehensive detailed information on how much money has been received, where it sits, how it has been spent so far and will be spent in the future, and the government’s broader plan for recovery risks eroding public trust, and investor and donor confidence.

Transparency may sound like a distraction from the emergency, but with some Jamaicans already complaining about unfairness of aid distribution, allegations of delayed relief along party lines and even the possible temptation of corruption whether now or down the road, transparency is perhaps one of the most effective ways in tamping down on any false narratives and ensuring that the government’s response is credible and accountable, and most importantly, that it is fairly reaching all persons that were affected by Hurricane Melissa.

####

Editor’s Notes:

Exchange rate used is US$1:J$160.

Editing help from ChatGPT.

Opinion: As Hurricane Melissa Fast-Tracks Jamaica’s Aid and Procurement Processes, It Should Speed Up Transparency and Oversight Too.

Zahra Burton — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:24:53 GMT

Aid being delivered by the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) after Hurricane Melissa. Photo from JDF’s X page.

Yesterday, the United States committed another US$10 million in aid to help Jamaica recover from Hurricane Melissa, bringing its total contribution to US$22 million.

It seems like the largest single donation to Jamaica by an individual country so far, but there’s no way for the public to know for sure.

This shouldn’t be the case.

There should be a live tally of all donations, and the public should immediately be able to know how much has come in and, and within three months at least, where it’s going.

Instead, at a Nov. 6 press briefing, Information Minister Dana Morris Dixon said the “huge spreadsheet of everything that comes in” at the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) will be given “at the appropriate time” as new head, Commander Alvin Gayle, gets more integrated into ODPEM.

Speaking at the same press briefing, Gayle said a subcommittee would provide oversight to the monies coming in and that, “somewhere down the road those figures will become public.”

Video: Information Minister Sen. Dana Morris Dixon and ODPEM Head Commander Alvin Gayle answer press questions on Nov. 6

When exactly is “the appropriate time” if not now? When exactly is “somewhere down the road?”

The Jamaican government doesn’t exactly have the best track record of delivering full information, much less in a timely manner. So, despite these assurances, there should still be cause for concern.

If the government was so invested in transparency and accountability, the government’s donation site, SupportJamaica.gov.jm, would have been built with a publicly-available tracker of amounts raised from the outset. Instead, I don’t see any tracker there, and the public is left to get verbal updates from Morris Dixon every couple of days on how much money has been raised from that portal.

Adding to the concern is that long before now — in 2020 — the Integrity Commission stopped releasing to the public its database that tracks government contracts, citing limitations in the Integrity Commission Act. Despite bringing the issue to the parliament, lawmakers have dragged their feet to rectify those concerns.

Over the years, the government has also hidden behind various clauses of the Access to Information Act to exempt basic information.

One of its favorites is that the information is commercially sensitive.

Earlier this year, an ATI request to the state’s National Water Commission (NWC) for a copy of the contract for the US$92 million (J$14.75 billion) Rio Cobre Water Treatment Plant project led by French construction firm Vinci and its local partners was largely redacted when sent after several months of the initial request being made, instead of within the initial mandated period of 30 days.

And when 18º North followed up in August asking specifically for some of the public-interest information that had been redacted like: 1. Date of contract signing. 2. Names and signatures of persons that signed the contract and their entity affiliations. 3. The value of the contract. 4. The scope of work to be completed and dates when work would start and end. 5. Initial financing arrangements that were in place for the project—source of financing and interest rates and the price the NWC would pay for this water, the NWC has not responded to the request.

Getting information from the Ministry of Health and Wellness during the Covid-19 pandemic was just as frustrating.

18º North had requested copies of agreements that existed between the Government of Jamaica and international donors of Covid-19 vaccines and was told by the Ministry of Health that a legal review was being sought because section 14 of the ATI Act exempts documents that “contain information communicated in confidence to the Government by or on behalf of a foreign government or by an international organization.” (I can’t find where that legal opinion ever came into my inbox.)

What are the chances that when journalists submit ATI requests for information on Hurricane Melissa aid —be it from the U.S. or other countries like Spain, Venezuela, China or El Salvador — that the same Section 14 of the ATI Act will be invoked?

At the Nov. 6 press briefing, Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness said that there would have been a Cabinet meeting that same day to discuss the allocation of expenditures and that, “[Health] Minister Tufton is quick off the bat. He has brought a quite hefty bill.” Morris Dixon, who is also the Minister of Education, said under her breath, “I have mine too.”

So, what has been the allocation to each ministry? The public, at another press conference scheduled for this morning at 10 a.m., should be able to know.

In the same way that the prime minister had invoked sections of the Disaster Risk Management Act before and after the storm, which allows for the speedy deployment of resources to protect life and property, the rules should also be relaxed under the ATI Act so that journalists and members of the public can get information in full and in less than 30 days without these exemption clauses being invoked so we can see how money is flowing in and out.

As a matter of routine, money flowing out via contracts should also be mandatorily required by emergency legislation to report spending of all this disaster relief money to the public by each government entity at least on a quarterly basis. The Integrity Commission should also be mandated under emergency legislation to release a comprehensive report of all these contracts listing contractor, size and date of award, work done and procurement methodology, also on a quarterly basis.

While the Auditor General’s Department announced yesterday that it will be doing real-time auditing of the relief funds, there’s no better audit than the watchful eyes of the public who is able to immediately tell whether work was done and whether value for money was achieved — and of course whether there is fairness in how the contracts are being awarded.

Not Just Money That Needs Monitoring, But Also Aid.

And it’s not just money coming in that needs real-time monitoring.

There also needs to be more transparency on where humanitarian aid is being deployed.

Information should be provided on a daily real-time basis — What was dropped? Where? How many people or families benefited, and how long is the aid expected to last?

This will allow us, as media and members of the public, to understand which communities have yet to be reached, and maybe how we can individually help the ones that are not being reached by government aid.

At the Nov. 6 press briefing, TVJ’s Kelesha Williams asked if there was a schedule of the aid that can be published and was told by Gayle, that there is an internal one but because the situation remains “dynamic” on the ground, even in terms of landing sites, ODPEM would wait until the situation becomes more “benign” before making the daily schedule public. This shouldn’t be the case.

RJR’s Dionne Jackson Miller also asked for a list of marooned communities, since, at its peak, the public was told there were more than 30 communities cut off as a result of flooding, landslides, collapsed bridges or disintegrated roads.

To that, Gayle said the list would be made public “shortly” while assuring that aid had been dropped to more than 20 of the communities and the government was working to reduce the number of marooned communities, which he said last week was 27.

Jackson Miller also asked about an independent oversight committee to monitor the spending of aid. To that, Morris Dixon said the governance framework was still being discussed and we would hear more on that. When?

In a Nov. 2 letter, the presidents of the various private sector bodies in Jamaica had called for an oversight and recovery committee made up of not just representatives of government and the opposition, but also members of the private sector and civil society. At the end of the day, in addition to the millions of U.S. dollars and aid coming in from countries and organizations around the world, US$150 million (J$24 billion) will flow to Jamaica from the World Bank-issued catastrophe bond, and US$91.9 million (J$14.8 billion) from CCRIF, which for us, is significant.

As social enterprise specialist, Yaneek Page, posted on X on Nov. 7, “History has taught us that once aid comes, the whispers begin,” and Jamaica can’t afford to follow the path of Haiti or Puerto Rico where the aid came but the systems failed and communities were overlooked.

She posted, “We must show our people, donors, and the world, a gold standard in accountability and reporting. Transparent. Non-partisan. Auditable. Immediate.”

I second her sentiments. I would also add more specificity being made available quickly to the public to guide the decision-making around humanitarian relief.

####

Editor’s Note:
This version corrects the conversion of the US$91.9 million from CCRIF to reflect J$14.8 billion. It had previously stated US$14.8 billion, which was a typographical error.

FREE --Analysis: Should Minister Tufton Have Been Referred For Prosecution Over His Role In The Health Ministry's Award of Contracts To Market Me?

Zahra Burton — Sun, 26 Oct 2025 14:13:19 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

Video: Dr. Christopher Tufton featured in one of the Jamaica Moves videos.

The Oct. 7 Integrity Commission (IC) report found that Health Minister Dr. Christopher Tufton “could reasonably be considered to have indirectly influenced” the engagement of Market Me Consulting Limited by his ministry—a company co-owned by his friend, Lyndsey McDonnough, and later awarded almost $80 million (US$563,819) in no-bid contracts from the health ministry and one of its agencies.

Despite that finding, the IC stopped short of recommending prosecution, instead referring the matter to the Speaker of the House—a move typically reserved for breaches of conduct, not procurement law.

Tufton admitted having been McDonnough’s friend since 2011-- before Market Me was incorporated in 2013 and before he became Minister of Health and Wellness in March 2016.

And yet, evidence submitted to the IC by the ministry’s then-Permanent Secretary Dr. Kevin Harvey and its then-Manager Public Relations and Communications Stephanie Shaw Smith showed it was:

Tufton who introduced Market Me to the ministry upon taking office.
Tufton who asked that Market Me be involved in all PR activities related to his role before the ministry had ever contracted with the company.
And Tufton who pushed for the company to present its proposal for its physical activity program, Jamaica Moves, though another firm, OGM Integrated Communications, already had a contract for a similar program, Make It Count.

Director of Investigation (DI) Kevon Stephenson concluded that the rules required Tufton to have formally declared a conflict of interest, but he didn’t. And still, the DI didn’t recommend a criminal sanction.

While the IC has since explained why the DI declined to do so, based on an analysis by 18º North, the reason still seems inadequate for a public wanting to know where’s the accountability in Jamaica’s governance system?

Procurement Rules on Conflict of Interest

At the time of Market Me’s first Jamaica Moves no-bid contract in 2017, valued at $15.8 million (US$113,444), the governing rules were The Contractor General Act – Public Sector Procurement Regulations, 2008, and the Government of Jamaica Handbook of Public Sector Procurement Procedures (Revised 2014).

Regulation 36(1) of the 2008 legislation required any public officer, even if indirectly involved in procurement, like preparation of bidding documents or evaluation, to declare any conflict of interest and refrain from being involved in decision-making or implementation of the contract where such a relationship exists.

Section 4.2.1 of the GOJ Handbook states a conflict of interest will arise when the individual has a direct or indirect relationship with a contractor, which may affect or might reasonably be deemed by others, to affect impartiality on any matter related to his/her duties.

And yet, despite the fact that it was his friend’s business, Tufton was arguably involved in implementation since he was the face of Jamaica Moves, appearing widely in the media. He also arguably participated in the preparation part of the procurement process, since, according to the IC report, he was “integrally involved” in a number of meetings to discuss Jamaica Moves, even at its proposal stage.

Shaw Smith told the DI about one such meeting over a weekend at Market Me’s office with Tufton and McDonnough, where in addition to Jamaica Moves, they also discussed OGM’s Make It Count. Another meeting, which Tufton confirmed attending, was Market Me’s July 2016 presentation to the ministry.

Former PS Harvey told investigators that before Market Me’s presentation on Jamaica Moves, *OGM Integrated had already made its pitch for a similar healthy lifestyle program at one of Tufton’s previous senior management briefings.

He recalled how after Market Me’s presentation, “the HMH [Honourable Minister of Health] asked that myself and the technical team responsible meet with Market Me to further discuss the proposal.”

Harvey also confirmed a third meeting where the ministry outlined deficiencies of Market Me’s proposal and advised the company to submit a detailed written one if it intended to submit an unsolicited proposal.

The health ministry would indeed go on to submit an unsolicited proposal from Market Me to the National Contracts Commission (NCC), which approved direct contracting in December 2016, allowing the ministry to bypass the competitive process.

The Unsolicited Proposal That Really Wasn’t Unsolicited

But the DI, who is an attorney, found that the circumstances under which the ministry accepted Market Me’s unsolicited proposal weren’t financially prudent and weren’t justified since OGM had already been engaged for a similar campaign, and unsolicited proposals are supposed to be unique and not resemble a recent or pending competitive tender. Stephenson also noted that unsolicited proposals must be submitted without influence from the procuring entity, and ministry officials, at Tufton’s prompting, had given Market Me feedback on its proposal’s deficiencies before the firm was allowed to resubmit it, which provided an “unfair advantage” to Market Me.

As a result, the DI ruled that the use of the unsolicited proposal method breached Section 1.2 of the GOJ Handbook and the opportunity should have gone to competitive tendering. However, he didn’t recommend prosecution of the ministry or NCC officials and didn’t explain why he declined to do so.

Integrity Commission’s Director of Investigation Kevon Stephenson. Photo taken from his LinkedIn page.

The Question of Accountability

Procurement consultant Ricardo Bailey at DRB Group told 18º North it was the permanent secretary’s duty to have advised the minister on what was permissible. But PS Harvey left the ministry in July 2016, about a year before the contract was eventually signed in June 2017, and the report didn’t clarify whether his immediate successor, Elaine Foster-Allen, knew of Harvey’s prior missteps before submitting Market Me’s unsolicited proposal to the NCC.

Asked if he influenced Market Me’s proposal, Tufton told investigators: “I gave no instructions to anyone to award the contract to Market Me.” However, he said, “Given the policy direction that I wish to embark upon it would be expected that contracts awarded by the Ministry to execute policy on wellness and lifestyle matters such as Jamaica Moves project would be in harmony with policy objectives articulated by me as Minister.”

With that, Stephenson concluded that while there was no evidence Tufton directly instructed anyone, he “gave directives” to his permanent secretary that could, “to the mind of the reasonable and detached observer, be construed as an indirect instruction to engage the entity by way of contract(s).”

And though finding that Tufton’s actions gave rise to, “at its lowest, a perceived conflict of interest,” where, in his public function, he advanced a private interest which resulted in a monetary benefit to his friend’s business that contravened “principles” of transparency and good governance, Stephenson stopped short of saying that his actions violated the law.

Why the IC Didn’t Refer Tufton for Prosecution

When asked by email why the DI didn’t make a criminal referral, the IC responded that “a referral for prosecutorial consideration would not have been appropriate” because the evidence was “insufficient to prove some of the elements of the potential offenses to the required standard (beyond reasonable doubt).”

It also cited as a “significant hurdle” the definition of “personal relationship” under Regulation 36(5) of the 2008 Regulations which is “consanguinity or affinity up to the third civil degree,” meaning relations by blood or marriage.

Section 36 of The Public Procurement Act, 2015

It’s not fully clear why the IC felt the definition of “personal relationship” mattered, but after Regulation 36(1) gives the circumstances where conflicts of interest must be declared, subparagraph (2) states: Every personal relationship shall be disclosed in writing or, if in a meeting orally and then minuted...

Even though Tufton admitted to the DI having “a personal relationship/friendship” with Ms. McDonnough, Stephenson appears to have concluded that their connection didn’t meet the legal threshold.

A Different Standard?

That reasoning, however, seems inconsistent with an IC probe released in 2023 where Stephenson referred Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness for prosecution under the same 2008 Regulations after finding he “may have influenced” contracts for works in his constituency in 2007 and 2009 to Westcon Construction, linked to his business associate Robert Garvin. There was no indication Holness and Garvin were related by blood or marriage, yet Stephenson deemed their “personal affiliation” as enough for a referral.

In that case, after considering Regulation 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b), which mandate declaration of “any” potential conflict of interest or “any” relationship with a bidder or supplier, the IC’s Director of Corruption Prosecution (DCP) declined to charge Holness —not because of the personal relationship definition in 36(5), but due to insufficient proof of procurement interference since the guidelines surrounding constituency contracts weren’t fully established at the time. Why the standard is different in the case of Tufton and McDonnough’s relationship has not been answered by the IC.

A Way Around "Personal Relationship”

Even if the “personal relationship” clause in Regulation 36(5) of the 2008 law was a hurdle, some legal minds consulted by 18º North agree that the DI could have relied on other provisions of that same law to recommend charges.

Regulation 7 required adherence to the GOJ Handbook—which the DI itself found was breached when the ministry improperly used the unsolicited proposal method to hire Market Me even though it had the blessing of the NCC. Regulations 35 and 38 dealt with confidentiality in procurement matters, yet Shaw Smith told investigators that she, Tufton and McDonnough discussed OGM’s Make It Count campaign at Market Me’s office—suggesting a breach. Regulation 36(3) stated point blank that a contractor with potential or actual conflict of interest is ineligible to submit a proposal, and Market Me, whose co-owner was Tufton’s friend, had not just submitted a proposal, but had also gotten almost $80 million worth of ministry contracts.

According to Regulation 40, the penalty for direct breaches of the Regulations —and also for aiding or abetting them — was a fine of up to $1,000 (US$7) and, or three months in prison. This raises a question of why the DI didn’t refer ministry officials for prosecution for having breached the law and then similarly recommend Tufton for having incited those breaches?

The DI might also have pursued violations under The Public Procurement Act, 2015, which, when it was effectuated on April 1, 2019, **repealed the 2008 Regulations and doesn’t contain that personal relationship clause. Section 42(1)(b) of that Act broadly requires procuring entities to exclude contractors with an unfair competitive advantage “or” conflict of interest but doesn’t specifically define those terms. Since the DI had found both a perceived conflict of interest and an unfair advantage in Market Me’s first no-bid Jamaica Moves contract, Stephenson could have argued that even one of those issues tainted some of Market Me’s later contracts between 2019 and 2021 that would have been governed by this newer legislation -- ultimately because of Tufton’s influence.

Section 42 of The Public Procurement Act, 2015.

The penalty under Section 56(1)(a) for any person who unlawfully influences or attempts to influence an officer involved in the procurement process, even if indirectly, is up to $3 million (US$21,525) and, or three years in prison.

Section 56 of The Public Procurement Act, 2015

Instead, the only referral he made on those later contracts —a few of which were found to be in breach of the procurement rules because they exceeded the direct-contracting threshold —was to the permanent secretary for “appropriate action” and for a determination to be made as to whether there needed to be recovery of any loss.

What About Financial Benefit, Other Lines of Enquiry?

There was also the common law offense of misconduct in a public office available to the DI that he didn’t use. In the Westcon ruling, for instance, the DCP evaluated a recommendation to formally accuse Holness of that charge, but she ultimately declined to do so because of not enough evidence. In his investigation report, the DI had referred Holness for possible breaches of The Corruption (Prevention) Act, which the DCP didn’t address in her ruling. Why didn’t the DI similarly refer Tufton or at least explain why he didn’t do so, as he’s done in a previous report?

There’s also no sign the DI investigated whether Tufton got money from Market Me, even though the IC would have had access to his statutory declarations with information about his bank accounts, and the IC didn’t respond to 18º North when asked if that was done.

The enquiry may have been warranted because in an April 2024 Gleaner op-ed, Tufton appeared to claim partial credit for conceptualizing Jamaica Moves, contradicting both his and McDonnough’s statements to the DI that the program was Market Me’s idea. He wrote, “The concern and concept I was clear on. The name and branding were done through collaboration with one of the craziest (creative crazy) but brilliant creative thinkers I knew at the time. Jamaica Moves (JaMoves) was born.”

Was that brilliant, creative thinker McDonnough?

Tufton also wrote that “we creatively packaged selected corporate brands” to fund Jamaica Moves before government financial support. But who was “we” — Tufton and McDonnough, or Tufton and the ministry, which admitted in 2020 it launched the initiative in April 2017 with private sector funding before Market Me’s June 2017 contract? Who benefited from that funding and the “in excess of $75 million” (US$538,136) in private contributions that Market Me had said in 2020 supported the program?

Though the firm seemed to claim most of those funds went directly to suppliers, the IC should have verified and examined this if it found it had jurisdiction. Tufton did tell the DI, “I do not have a business relationship with Ms. McDonnough” aside from her firm’s ministry contracts and work done in his constituency “on a voluntary and professional basis.”

But why was the co-owner of a health ministry contractor providing voluntary work to the health minister’s constituency? When was that work provided, what was its value, and should it have been declared? The DI didn’t go into that. Parliamentarians are required to report on their statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission gifts they receive valued at over $100,000, but it’s not known if voluntary work provided to a parliamentarian’s constituency would fall into that category.

The DI also appears to have overlooked publicly available information.

For example, 18º North had published evidence in 2022 showing that Tufton had pushed for an agency of his ministry, the National Health Fund (NHF), to fund Jamaica Moves even though it was a ministry initiative. The evidence showed he had also attended the meeting of the NHF board where Jamaica Moves’ initial funding was approved, and he had also helped to oversee its implementation. Yet there’s no indication investigators used this material or questioned NHF board members or officials about Tufton’s involvement. Key witnesses also appear to have been missed like Permanent Secretary Foster-Allen, who came in 2016 immediately after Harvey, and the PS who followed her in 2017, Sancia Bennett-Templer.

Those interviews could have been useful because when the DI interviewed Permanent Secretary Dunstan Bryan, who came to the ministry in 2018 and who oversaw the $38.9 million (US$279,341) Jamaica Moves contract to Market Me in 2019, Bryan gave him a key detail to help him prove Tufton’s further involvement in the procurement process. “The Minister and I discussed the implementation of activities related to the Jamaica Moves Campaign,” he told the DI. He also stated “the issue of outstanding payments to Market Me was raised with me in January 2019” in response to a question about the minister’s involvement.

If Bryan was indeed referring to the minister, why was Tufton raising the issue of outstanding payments to Market Me if it was his friend’s firm?

Referral to the Speaker

Stephenson did refer the matter to the Speaker of the House, but he didn’t say what he hoped the referral would achieve.

Without specifically saying it, maybe he felt that Tufton had violated the principles of Ministry Paper No. 19/2002, Conduct of Ministers, which he cited in the body of the report, and which states that ministers must act solely in the public interest and declare private interests relating to their public duties.

Tufton, meanwhile, publicly framed the report as representing “vindication.” In an interview that aired on an Oct. 8 edition of TVJ’s All Angles, he noted that the IC had found “no evidence of pursuing the matter beyond having a discussion with the Speaker.” The Health Ministry also claimed the report found “no malfeasance.”

But Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP) Executive Director Jeanette Calder, who appeared on the same program, disagreed, saying multiple procurement breaches occurred. “If you’re violating laws and regulations and the ministry doesn’t see that as a wrongdoing, the public has reason to be concerned,” she said. “And if the minister doesn’t see violations of public procurement laws that safeguard and protect our assets and funds as illegality then we really have to have a serious conversation about who the minister reports to.” (Calder has always maintained that parliamentarians report to taxpayers.)

The Larger Question of Accountability

The DI’s only potential referral for prosecution against ministry officials was their failure to submit certain Market Me contracts to the IC’s Quarterly Contract Awards database, a compilation of contracts issued by public bodies. But even that collapsed due to “evidentiary gaps,” including the absence of a key requisition once issued by the IC’s predecessor, Office of the Contractor General, requiring the submission of details of contracts.

That this was his strongest prosecutable point—and still fell apart—doesn’t feel like enough for an entity whose job it is to pursue accountability.

Given the weight these reports carry in shaping conduct, the DI should still clarify in more detail, even now, why no charges were recommended and how procurement accountability laws can be strengthened, like he’s done in a previous report. He should perhaps also be brought before the parliament’s Integrity Commission Oversight Committee to explain his reasoning.

Without clearer explanations and consistency, such findings risk normalizing political influence as “policy direction.”

After five years of investigation, the public deserved evidence of a more exhaustive probe and an indication that the DI had tested every legal avenue, even if the DCP later declined to prosecute. Instead, the report reflects an inadequate and incomplete effort and raises questions not just about the minister’s actions but also about the IC’s resolve to fight corruption.

####

Editor’s Notes:
This story has been updated to add the paragraph about gift declarations and the question of why the minister was asking about outstanding payments to Market Me.

Editing help from ChatGPT.

Exchange rate used is J$1:US$139.37, the average of the average sell rates for the years over which the contracts were awarded in 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021, as displayed by the Bank of Jamaica.

*Harvey stated OCG communications in his actual writing, but the IC used OGM Integrated Communications in its conclusions.

**The IC maintains that the 2008 Regulations were repealed on February 22, 2018 — before The Public Procurement Act, 2015 came into force on April 1, 2019 — by virtue of the Integrity Commission Act being effectuated. It says when the Integrity Commission Act came into force, it repealed the Contractor General Act, which formed the lawful basis of the 2008 Regulations, and so the Regulations became defunct. However, it didn’t answer a subsequent question about what legislation, then, governed public procurement between February 2018 and March 2019. The Ministry of Finance, which provides guidance on procurement for all public bodies, maintains that the 2008 Regulations governed public procurement up to April 1, 2019, but hasn’t yet rebutted the IC’s point, even though it was asked about it.

Disclaimer: I had applied to the job of Manager, Contracts, Procurement & Corruption Investigations at the Integrity Commission in May 2025, and updated my application in June, but didn’t get the job. The position reports to the DI.

This was originally a paid subscriber post before it was made free. If you’ve read this full post, you’ll probably enjoy the benefits of being a paid subscriber, which allow you to get full access to these kinds of articles FIRST and to our FULL archive of stories. And you’re in luck. 18 Degrees North Investigations is having a 50% off sale this week for Black Friday. That’s 50% off the going rate — not just for one year but each time you renew for the life of your subscription. You can’t beat that! Become a paid subscriber today!

Black Friday 50% Off

Minister Tufton Addressed NHF Meeting That Approved $15M of Gov’t Funds for Alleged Sweetheart’s Firm

Christopher Tufton and Jamaica Moves: Just Doing His Job or Did He Overstep The Boundaries?

In Unusual Move, Ministry of Health Issues Reaction to IC Report Before It Was Tabled In Parliament

Zahra Burton — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 22:09:40 GMT

The Ministry of Health & Wellness released its reaction to an Integrity Commission investigation report before it was tabled in the parliament. The report probed alleged conflicts of interest involving the Ministry of Health, Health Minister Dr. Christopher Tufton and the public relations firm Market Me.

The release of the ministry’s reaction to the un-tabled report raises a question about whether it had received a copy of the investigation prior to it being made public, and how, if yes?

Typically, the report is tabled before the reaction is received, and the Integrity Commission hasn’t yet answered an email as to whether it gave the Health Ministry an advance copy. A call was also not answered.

Timeline

The Integrity Commission had issued a release on Friday, September 26 announcing that it had submitted four investigation reports and three indicative rulings to Parliament for tabling.

This morning, Nationwide News Network (NNN) reported that the subject of one of the un-tabled IC reports was the issue of the contracts issued to Market Me and stated it would be tabled in the Parliament later this afternoon.

The time stamp of the email with the ministry’s reaction to the report was 3:04 p.m. and its release specifically started, “The Ministry takes note of the report from the Integrity Commission (IC) tabled in Parliament earlier today (October 7, 2025) as the culmination of its investigations.”

But when 18º North asked the parliament for the report which had been reportedly “tabled,” the public relations officer Shernette Johnson responded at 3:31 p.m., “The report has not yet been tabled. Once it is tabled, it will be sent out.”

When 18º North asked the Ministry of Health’s representative Petre Williams-Raynor at 3:38 p.m. whether and how the ministry was able to issue a reaction prior to the report being tabled, she asked me to hold off on reporting the ministry’s reaction.

When I said “No, I can’t do that,” she gasped, “Oh My God!”

I asked whether the ministry got the report from the Integrity Commission before it was tabled or from the parliament and she responded, “I can’t comment on that.”

The parliament subsequently issued an email with the tabled documents at 3:50 p.m.

Earlier in the day, the Opposition People’s National Party had issued a release expressing concern about continued leaks to Nationwide News Network (NNN) prior to reports from the IC being officially tabled in Parliament.

The release stated, “Under the Integrity Commission Act, reports are required to be first submitted to Parliament and formally tabled before they are made public. The recurring disclosure of their contents beforehand undermines the authority of Parliament, erodes public confidence in the integrity of the process, and suggests that there is a serious breakdown in the official chain of custody.”

When told about the Ministry of Health's release of its reaction before the report was tabled, Shadow Minister of Information Nekeisha Burchell, responded at 4:50 p.m. saying, “These actions are not merely improper, they are a direct affront to the authority of Parliament and to the laws that govern how official information is to be handled…It is inconceivable that a ministry could respond to a report it had no lawful access to.”

She called for an investigation, “Whether through the Speaker of the House, the Cabinet Secretary, or law enforcement, this matter must be investigated swiftly, and those responsible must be sanctioned. If breaches of this magnitude go unpunished, Parliament itself will lose credibility as the guardian of accountability in our democracy.”

18º North will now go through the IC report and report back. Meantime, here is the release with the contents of the Ministry of Health’s reaction to the IC’s report:

####

MP Andrew Holness Bought FINSAC’ed House in 2002 as Thousands of Jamaicans Faced Ruin From the Financial Crisis

Zahra Burton — Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:12:54 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

On August 10, just before announcing the September 3 general election date, Jamaica’s Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness derided the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) over the high-interest policies of the 1990s, which crippled the financial sector, caused thousands of entrepreneurs to lose their homes and businesses, and cost Jamaica 40% of its GDP.

Addressing a galvanized crowd of Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) supporters, Holness targeted Opposition Leader Mark Golding, whose former investment firm profited during the period, declaring, “No poor person in Jamaica should ever allow that man to touch the economy,” because he and his friends would continue where they left off of “transferring wealth from you to their coffers.” He contrasted this with his own record, “I went through the Jamaican struggle, and I never made any money on the backs of the Jamaican people.”

However, an 18° North investigation raises questions about whether Holness himself may have benefited from the very fallout for which he condemns the PNP.

In 2002, the then first-time Opposition member of parliament and his wife, Juliet — who would later also become a MP and Speaker of the House — purchased a property whose loan had been taken over by the government’s Financial Sector Adjustment Company (FINSAC) and made it their home.

Who Owns MEDITECH? MP's Trustee Role Tests Jamaica's Ownership Disclosure Law

Zahra Burton — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 20:07:21 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

The revelation that Kingston Central Member of Parliament Donovan Williams is the trustee shareholder of 40,000 of Medical Technologies (MEDITECH) Ltd.’s 50,000 issued shares has raised questions over the real ownership of the company, which is at the center of a $31.5 million (US$200,151) neurosurgical drill controversy.

The revelation came to light at a May 20 press conference by Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes, who accused the firm of overcharging the Jamaican government for the drill made by U.S. manufacturer Medtronic — a claim over which he is now being sued.

Kingston Central Member of Parliament, Donovan Williams. Photo credit: Jamaica Labour Party.

Williams subsequently issued a statement claiming he was only “trustee” of the shares in his other capacity as an attorney and doesn’t share in the company’s profits. He said that following the resolution of a shareholder dispute in 2022, arrangements were made to facilitate transfer of the shares to the real owner - who he didn’t name - though as of July 7, 2025, he is still listed as the shareholder. The other two shareholders owning 5,000 shares each from the company’s inception in 2007 are Athol Hamilton and Trudy-Ann Ricketts, who are also listed as the company’s directors. Neither Hamilton, Ricketts, nor Williams would answer questions about the company.

2016 MEDITECH shareholder dispute

In a 2016 lawsuit filed against MEDITECH and Williams in Jamaican court, previously-listed shareholder Winfield Boban, an American, claimed he had given Williams the 40,000 shares in 2009 to hold in trust.

Photo of Winfield Boban taken from his LinkedIn page.

Boban, a former Medtronic regional manager directing sales in the Caribbean and Latin America between 1999 and 2005, declined to comment on the lawsuit’s outcome, and the court told 18° North the case is sealed.

Complicating matters is that MEDITECH and Williams secured an injunction to conceal the identity of a silent partner who had provided financial backing. According to the ruling that secured the injunction, MEDITECH had argued that it is on behalf of that person — known only as “Person A” in the court document — that Williams owns the 40,000 shares.

The ban on nominees

The murkiness of MEDITECH’s ownership is precisely the kind of opacity the amendments to Jamaica’s Companies Act in 2023 were trying to eliminate. At the prodding of the global financial watchdog, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), these reforms were aimed at greater transparency around company ownership to help combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

*Section 23A of the Companies Act now states, “No company incorporated under this Act shall have a nominee shareholder,” and section 172(1A) states: “No company incorporated under this Act shall appoint a nominee director.”

Though these terms aren’t defined in the principal Act and there are no listed penalties, 18° North sent an email to an attorney from the Companies Office of Jamaica asking, "If an attorney is saying they are a trustee for shares today, isn't that prohibited as a result of the section of that Act now or can you still be a trustee for shares for a Jamaican company?"

The attorney, who didn’t want to be named, responded: "Yes your example is correct that arrangement is prohibited." However, when asked if MEDITECH was therefore in breach of the Companies Act, she didn’t respond.

The issues with nominees

Nominees have traditionally been used to front for the real owners of companies usually for privacy reasons or convenience, and are usually paid a fee.

However, following the 2016 Panama Papers leak that exposed how some nominees had been used to obscure the identity of alleged tax dodgers, money launderers or persons involved in other criminal activity, there was a global push for company transparency.

Video: An old report by 18° North journalist Andre Huie in Nevis, where the use of nominee directors raised red flags, underscoring the dangers of leaving company ownership opaque.

In Jamaica, Keith Darien of the Financial Investigations Division attests that nominee setups without knowing who the beneficial owner is “complicates and frustrates the work of financial crime investigators to recognize proceeds of crime to trace ill-gotten gains and to eventually have those assets forfeited.”

Now, under the new law, not only are nominee shareholders and directors for Jamaican companies outlawed, but a beneficial ownership return must also be filed, revealing individuals who hold at least 25% of shares or exert ultimate control over the company or its management.

Opposition Leader Mark Golding supports nominee use

It was the addition of the beneficial ownership return and it being applied to a broad swath of companies that helped Jamaica get off FATF’s Grey List, which had previously hurt the credibility of the country’s financial system globally.

However, despite the new filing requirement, the beneficial ownership information is available only to certain authorities and procuring entities—not to the public. The ban on nominee shareholders bridged that gap, ensuring that listed shareholders are the true owners—or at least face scrutiny if they aren’t.

But rather than cheering on these amendments, Opposition Leader Mark Golding, who is also a corporate attorney, opposed the ban on nominee shareholders when the changes were tabled on March 28, 2023, three days before the deadline for it to be passed on March 31, 2023. He argued that the bill was being rushed to meet FATF requirements without proper thought and that requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership made the ban unnecessary.

Golding explained, while revealing that he was asked to make representation by a leading company law attorney, that nominees can serve legitimate functions in helping manage companies for people who live abroad or outside of Kingston. “It is a question of commercial convenience that these arrangements be facilitated,” he said.

A snippet from a video curated by PNP with Mark Golding’s presentation when the amendments to the Companies Act were tabled in 2023.

In a later clarification, Golding acknowledged to 18° North on July 3, 2025 that when he spoke in 2023, he wasn’t aware that the beneficial ownership information wouldn't be open to the public. While he says he supports making that public, he still defends the use of nominee shareholders, spelling out that they can represent minors or those with intellectual disabilities, and, in a commercial context, they can also hold shares as collateral to secure obligations owed by the real shareholder to a third party, and even serve as an escrow agent for the real shareholder, pending the outcome of a future event.

Why did Boban transfer the shares to be kept in trust?

Boban told 18° North the reason he transferred his 40,000 shares to Williams in 2009 was so he could act on his behalf because “I wasn’t living in Jamaica at the time.”

It’s not clear why that would have been necessary since he had listed a Texas address when first registering as a MEDITECH shareholder in 2008—suggesting he may have already been living abroad.

Additionally, when Boban ceased being a director in 2009, he didn’t also transfer his directorship to Williams and, in fact, “remained as CEO until the year 2013,” according to a statement later sent by his attorney to 18° North.

Asked whether his decision to make Williams trustee was because of an issue with his then U.S. employer listed on his LinkedIn profile — which was in the business of biologic products and was later bought by Medtronic — Boban said, “Madam We have already spoken. You are putting my life in danger. Please stop.”

Asked why he said that, he didn’t respond.

MEDITECH’s compliance issues

Companies Office records show that, since its 2021 filing, MEDITECH hasn’t submitted any new annual returns, which is how shareholder changes are usually reported.

Oddly, on that annual return, Williams is marked as the beneficial owner of the shares, which was how such information for companies with shares used to be reported prior to 2023, when filing a separate form became mandatory. As of July 7, 2025, MEDITECH hasn’t filed that mandatory beneficial ownership return either.

Listed shareholders of MEDITECH as of the 2021 annual return.

Penalties for not filing a Beneficial Ownership Return

According to sections 377F and 377I of the amended Companies Act, once nine months have passed from the due date of the beneficial ownership return, the Companies Office is supposed to issue a notice to the company, and, during this time, the directors can’t borrow on behalf of the company and the members of the company can't transfer their shares. If the company doesn’t comply within 30 days, the Companies Office should write again giving the company an additional 60 days to comply. Failure to submit the documents then could result in the company being struck off the register and the company being dissolved. Financial penalties could also apply. (MEDITECH has already racked up $36,000 (US$229) in late filing fees.)

But despite MEDITECH seemingly being in breach of the amended company law, the Companies Office said on June 10, when asked, that it hadn’t commenced compliance action against the company and didn’t explain when asked why not.

However, 18° North has since seen a Companies Office letter from that same date requesting that MEDITECH file its overdue returns, though it made no mention of Williams’ public acknowledgment about being a trustee shareholder. The Companies Office also made clear this letter wasn’t sent under section 377F of the Act. When asked why not it would only say: “We use the different provisions for compliance in the Act and we have not yet used 377F for this company.”

Lackadaisical approach by regulators

This lack of proactive oversight and enforcement by the Companies Office raises a question about whether Jamaica is serious about compliance and whether this blasé approach by the country’s regulators could put Jamaica’s hard-won gains with FATF at risk?

In a statement released on May 22, Opposition Spokesperson on Justice Senator Donna Scott-Mottley called for immediate enforcement of the Companies Act; suspension of all government contracts with non-compliant entities; and full disclosure of MEDITECH’s beneficial owners.

“The public deserves transparency, not taxes funnelled to shadowy figures or political insiders,” she said.

But since the amended company law prohibits public disclosure of the beneficial owners by the Companies Office, it’s not clear how MEDITECH’s true ownership would be disclosed unless the Companies Office enforces the nominee ban and forces the company to update its records with the real shareholder.

Failing that or failing to get an investigation from an accountability body like the Integrity Commission - which Dawes has called for - might mean MEDITECH’s beneficial ownership information will remain private.

Will there be a rollback of ownership disclosure reforms?

As time goes by, the window for getting this information might also close.

Maurene Simms, Jamaica’s lead contact for FATF and chair of the National Anti-Money Laundering Committee, recently revealed to 18° North that the nominee ban was always meant to be temporary as the Companies Office didn’t devise safeguards to regulate nominees safely in time for the bill’s passage in 2023, and now proposed amendments are in the works for nominee shareholders to be put back in the framework with the right controls.

Despite Simms describing the proposed amendments as “advanced,” efforts by 18° North to get a copy of the changes have so far proved futile with the Companies Office stating, “they become public when the bill is being debated.”

If passed, that could mean that corporate lawyers, like Golding, would get their way, and potentially, once again, legally obscure for the public the real identity of shareholders.

####

Editor’s Notes:

Editing help by ChatGPT.

The exchange rate used is J$157.22:US$1, the average sell rate on the Bank of Jamaica website for 2024.

*Though sections 23A and 172(1A) of the Companies Act explicitly prohibit nominee shareholders and nominee directors, there are other references to nominees in the Act that weren’t changed in the 2023 amendments. As a result, at least one legal mind has suggested to 18° North there are legal ambiguities around the use of nominees even today. To those references, the Companies Office said, “The prohibition is the law now. These arrangements would have to be up dated to adhere to the prohibition.”

MEDITECH's Lack of Beneficial Ownership Return Triggers Probe By Entity That Registers and Renews Government Contractors

Zahra Burton — Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:49:32 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) says it has now “commenced an investigation” following questions from 18° North about how it could have earlier this month renewed the registration of Medical Technologies (MEDITECH) Limited to be able to continue getting government contracts—seemingly in contravention of its own law.

18° North had previously reported that MEDITECH - at the center of a controversy over a $31.5 million (US$200,151) neurosurgical drill sold to the government’s South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) - had received over $201 million (US$1.85 million) in public contracts between 2008 and 2020, and the drill deal awarded in 2024 suggests it had continued to get taxpayer-funded contracts past this time period.

Section 4 (3)(c) of The Public Procurement (Registration and Classification of Suppliers) Regulations, 2019 states that the Commission may renew the supplier’s registration if it is satisfied that “during the preceding registration period, the applicant has not engaged in any conduct amounting to a contravention of the Act or any other relevant law.”

And yet, the Milverton Reynolds-chaired PPC, which is the public entity that registers and renews government contractors, renewed MEDITECH’s registration for three years, effective June 2, 2025, despite a public revelation two weeks earlier that the company has a trustee shareholder, possibly violating Section 23A of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2023, which prohibits nominee shareholders for Jamaican companies. Furthermore, MEDITECH also has no beneficial ownership form on file at the Companies Office, another potential breach. Section 377A(1)(c) mandates that companies file this return annually.

MEDITECH’s current PPC Registration Certificate valid June 2, 2025 - June 2, 2028. The PPC says it couldn’t retrieve the previous certificate because of technical difficulties but that the company’s previous registration period would have been from around Oct. 2023 - April 2025, meaning that the company would have been PPC-registered when the SERHA drill contract was awarded in Sept. 2024. Prior to that, its registration ran from April 4, 2022 - October 4, 2023, which means it would also have been registered at the time of the February 2023 bid deadline for the same drill.

In a June 10 letter, the PPC acknowledged that the amended Companies Act forms part of the “relevant laws” but said it is “not the competent authority” to determine whether breaches of that Act have occurred. It claimed that at the time of MEDITECH’s registration renewal, the PPC had “no actionable information” confirming a breach. However, in light of the information shared, “we have commenced an investigation and remain committed to taking any necessary action in accordance with the law.”

Checklist of the items needed to submit an application to the PPC for registration.

MEDITECH’s Opaque Ownership Structure

MEDITECH's opaque ownership structure came to light following a highly-publicized press conference by Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes on May 20 where he accused the firm of overcharging the government for its neurosurgical drill —claims over which he is now being sued. During the press conference, Dawes revealed that MEDITECH “is owned by” Kingston Central Member of Parliament Donovan Williams, who didn’t dispute the company filings showing that he was listed as holding 40,000 of the company’s 50,000 issued shares. Instead, he said in a statement he was merely holding the shares as a “trustee” in his capacity as an attorney.

Kingston Central Member of Parliament, Donovan Williams. Photo credit: Jamaica Labour Party.

In his May 20 statement, Williams said that following the resolution of a shareholder dispute in 2022, documents had been prepared to facilitate the shares being passed to the beneficial owner - who he didn’t identify - and that removing his name as shareholder was now just a “formality.” As of June 27, however, he is still listed as the owner. In fact, on MEDITECH’s 2021 annual return - the latest on file - he is marked as the beneficial owner of the shares, which was how such information used to be reported prior to 2023, when filing a separate form became mandatory.

Listed shareholders of MEDITECH as of the 2021 annual return.

The other shareholders are Athol Hamilton and Trudy-Ann Ricketts, owning 5,000 shares each. The two also serve as the company’s directors, and Hamilton is the secretary.

Neither Williams, Hamilton nor Ricketts would respond to questions about the company’s structure. Williams also didn’t respond when asked when the beneficial owner form would be filed.

If MEDITECH files its Beneficial Owner Return, will the PPC care what’s on it?

On June 2, 18° North asked the PPC whether it had considered Williams’ status as a sitting MP before registering MEDITECH to be able to get government contracts after 2020, the year Williams was elected.

On June 6, the PPC wrote back stating that under the provisions of the 2019 Regulations, “the identity or status of shareholders is not a factor”, and that in the case of a company, the focus is placed on the directors, managers and secretary.

But to attorney Gordon Brown, whose experience spans more than 30 years forming companies and serving on public boards, that explanation is “irrational.” He believes the identity and status of shareholders with at least a 10% stake should absolutely be taken into account at the time of registration or when assessing for conflict of interest.

“Directors and Secretaries are mere officers of a company,” Gordon explained, while pointing out that sometimes officers can also be shareholders. “The shareholders are the real owners…It follows that the real power lies with them. If Directors won’t declare dividends to shareholders, they get booted.”

18° North also found that the PPC’s Form B, used for contractors who want to register to supply goods and services, specifically asks for principal owners or directors.

Extract from Form B, where information about the principal owners and directors is filled out.

When asked about this, the PPC clarified on June 10 that if the applicant is a sole trader, the focus is on the owner, but if it’s an incorporated company - as MEDITECH is - the focus then would be on the directors, managers and secretary, “who, in law, constitute the directing mind and will of the company.”

It further explained that the PPC registers companies on the stock exchange with thousands of shareholders, and it would therefore be impractical to enquire about the status of each of them. “Therefore, where the applicant is a Company, the Commission does not, as a standard procedure, require specific disclosure of, or investigate shareholders, including majority shareholders, at the registration stage. That information would serve no useful purpose, particularly because no contract award is being considered.”

But there was no need for the PPC to investigate in this case since the information had already been broadcast on national television on May 20.

And according to the Public Procurement Act, 2015, the legislation under which the PPC was created, the PPC is responsible for promoting integrity in the public procurement process, and ensuring transparency, fairness, and equity in the registration of persons, firms and entities in the awarding of procurement contracts.

Furthermore, Section 3(g) of the 2019 Regulations allows the Commission to refuse registration if there are circumstances that are likely to — “(i) call into disrepute; or (ii) lead to the improper conduct of, the business of or execution of contracts by the applicant or an officer or employee of the applicant.”

Asked whether a sitting MP being the major shareholder of record of a company getting a government contract could be seen as a conflict of interest and could therefore fall into this category, the PPC responded that this provision refers to circumstances likely to bring into disrepute the business of or the execution of a contract by the applicant. “At the time of the most recent registration, the Commission did not receive any actionable evidence that such circumstances existed in respect of Medical Technologies (Meditech) Limited,” it said. It added that if its investigation uncovers substantiated evidence, it will take action.

Conflict of Interest Checks

The PPC’s very own Form B also requires a declaration of interest if the applicant is currently employed to a government entity, which would trigger the need to show that the applicant got written permission to operate the business seeking to get government contracts.

But even though Williams is paid through the Parliament as a MP, the form seems only to apply this disclosure requirement to directors, partners, sole traders and company secretary — not shareholders, who don’t always have the ability to sign a contract on behalf of a firm.

The PPC also pays little regard to Section 42 1(b) of the Public Procurement Act 2015 which states:

A procuring entity shall exclude a person, firm or entity from procurement proceedings if (b) the person, firm or entity has an unfair competitive advantage or a conflict of interest that would be likely to impair the integrity of the procurement proceedings.

18° North pointed out to the PPC that former SERHA Regional Director Errol Greene had said that under his watch between 2021 and August 2024, ownership checks weren’t routinely done, and that the authority relied moreso on PPC registration status before awarding contracts. But the PPC still maintained that under this section of the law, such checks are the responsibility of the procuring entity at the time of procurement and not with the PPC at the registration stage. It added that “A conflict of interest must relate to a specific procurement opportunity and cannot be presumed based solely on a person’s status as a Member of Parliament or shareholder.”

On May 22, Opposition Senator Donna Scott-Mottley released a statement criticizing the government for continuing to award contracts to MEDITECH despite its non-compliance with the amended Companies Act, having not filed a beneficial ownership form. “The public deserves transparency,” she said, “not taxes funnelled to shadowy figures or political insiders.”

But given the PPC’s stance that the identity or status of shareholders “is not a factor,” the question is: Even if the real owners were to be known, would such information really have an impact on the country’s public procurement decisions?

####

Scrutiny Over J$31.5M Neurosurgical Drill Deal Deepens As SERHA Procurement History With MEDITECH Raises A 'Red Flag'

Zahra Burton — Sun, 08 Jun 2025 11:45:17 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

Medical Technologies (MEDITECH) Limited, the company suing Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes for accusing it of overcharging the government for a $31.5 million (US$200,151) neurosurgical drill last year, got 223 government contracts worth $201 million (US$1.85 million) between 2008 and 2020 — two-thirds of which received only one tender.

The database of Quarterly Contract Awards (QCA) shows that there were 152 such contracts worth $158.6 million (US$1.46 million) during that time period from five government entities with almost three-quarters of those awarded by the South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) — the public body that bought the $31.5 million drill.

South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) accounted for the bulk of government contracts to MEDITECH where only one tender was received. Source: Integrity Commission’s QCA Database.

In the case of the neurosurgical drill, the contract was awarded to MEDITECH by SERHA after an evaluation of three bids. However, the dearth of competition the company has faced in other areas raises a question about whether SERHA has been ensuring that taxpayers are getting a fair price.

Many of those contracts awarded by SERHA were small contracts to provide medical devices to individuals and were awarded mostly between 2010 and 2012, though the pattern continued into 2020, albeit at a lower frequency. Of note, no such contracts were recorded in 2008, 2014 and 2015. There are no contracts listed in the database after the third quarter of 2020 because the Integrity Commission, citing a piece of its legislation, says it’s barred from making further updates to the database public.

Most of SERHA’s contracts to MEDITECH that received only one tender were awarded between 2010 and 2012, but the pattern continued until 2020, albeit at a lower frequency. Source: Integrity Commission’s QCA Database

For the relevant years between 2009 and 2020, when the references in the database to MEDITECH’s SERHA contracts begin and end, SERHA awarded the company 113 such contracts worth $72.5 million (US$667,174), making the average contract size around $642,000 (US$5,904).

The threshold at which competitive tendering is required - unless there are unique circumstances or in cases of emergency - used to be up to $500,000 (US$4,598) for goods and services until October 1, 2016, when the threshold moved to $1.5 million (US$13,794).

According to the database, seven of the 113 contracts were direct contracting and two of those seven were above the threshold at which competitive bidding would have been required.

All the other 106 were limited tender or restricted bidding, meaning SERHA requested between 2 and 5 bids in each case but received only one in return.

When asked why only one tender was received in so many of the cases even after requesting multiple bids, SERHA’s chairman, Wentworth Charles, told 18⁰ North, “SERHA put out many tender, and no one responded from time to time.” He then suggested seeking greater clarity from SERHA’s personnel.

The public procurement rules state that competitive tendering is the government’s “preferred method” of procuring goods, services and works. However, in a situation where multiple bids were requested and only one received, the public procurement office within the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service told 18⁰ North, a public entity can proceed with that sole bidder especially when time is short and the price is within the expected range, though it would still recommend that the entity review its processes to find out why the other suppliers didn’t bid.

Jeanette Calder of Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal, JAMP, describes the frequency of there being only one bidder after multiple requests as “highly unusual” and a “red flag.”

While not grounds to accuse the entity of corruption, Calder said the pattern “should warrant a closer look by those tasked to investigate procurement concerns” since this type of tendering, where invitations are sent directly to selected suppliers rather than advertised publicly, creates a higher risk for “favoritism” or “for suppliers to collude.”

The $31.5 Million Drill: Core of the Controversy

In the case of the $31.5 million drill, there were three bids ranging from a low of $12 million (US$76,326) — which SERHA says didn’t meet the tender requirements — to a high of more than $50 million (US$318,026). Dawes said the successful bid from MEDITECH was in the middle at $31.5 million, just below the internal cost SERHA had forecast of $32 million (US$203,536).

Dawes believes SERHA overpaid and said initially and incorrectly in a press conference he called on May 20 that “the same drill,” the EM 200 model, an older version, should have cost $3 million (US$19,082) or less. He also questioned whether one of two refurbished drills brought in last year by the company for less than $300,000 (US$1,908) each was what SERHA ended up buying for $31.5 million.

However, in the defamation suit the company filed against Dawes for implying that the company was involved in “corrupt practices” and the “figurative ‘rape’ of Jamaican taxpayers,” MEDITECH presented documentation to show that the drill delivered to SERHA was a more advanced EM 800 model. It had also said previously in a separate statement that the item was new.

The invoice included over 150 attachments and accessories totaling $27.3 million (US$173,437) along with a two-year maintenance package costing an additional $4.2 million (US$26,714) for the total sum of $31.5 million.

Markups

Inclusive of freight for most items, MEDITECH paid $12.8 million (US$81,696) for the drill and accessories from U.S.-based manufacturer Medtronic, and since the items were brought in under the Ministry of Health’s name, there were minimal customs fees and no import duties, invoices and customs documents obtained by Dawes’ party and reviewed by 18⁰ North show.

This means, assuming no other fees, the company applied a markup of approximately 112% when it billed SERHA the $27.3 million; or around 145% if the $4.2 million maintenance package is included. This is significantly lower than the 949% markup implied by Dawes when he said the $31.5 million drill would have cost the company around $3 million.

Issues of Conflicts of Interest

Adding to the controversy, Kingston Central MP and attorney Donovan Williams is listed as owning 40,000 of the company’s 50,000 issued shares, which Dawes at the May 20 press conference said was “further evidence of what looks bad.”

But Williams claims he merely holds the shares in trust and is arranging their transfer to an unnamed rightful owner. “I'm not entitled to nor have I shared in the profits of this company,” he said, and added that Dawes’ suggestion that he derived benefit from the purchase of the drill is “false.” He has joined the company’s defamation suit against Dawes for implying he was part of a “web of corruption” paid for “in the suffering and death of children and babies.”

Dawes Doubles Down

Despite the lawsuit, Dawes doubled down on his position at the May 30th opening of his constituency office in South East St. Catherine, where he is the opposition’s candidate for the upcoming general election.

Dawes said after checking with various distributors as to the cost of each item for the drill, SERHA buying the items piecemeal drove up costs unnecessarily. He said the distributors asked, “Why you want to buy them individually when they come as a set?”

Opposition Spokesperson on Health Dr. Alfred Dawes speaking at the opening of his South East St. Catherine constituency office on May 30, 2025. Courtesy: BOJ TV.

He also repeated - without evidence - a suggestion he had made previously on social media that despite claims by SERHA that the procurement process was followed, the way the entity arrived at the internal cost of $32 million was “compromised” because no one has given him a satisfactory explanation of how they came up with that costing. (He had told 18⁰ North that SERHA had said it had checked with doctors to come up with that cost.)

He bellowed from the political platform, “SERHA said it would cost $32 million, and the bill reach $31.5 million. It nuh look good. It nuh sound good. It nuh smell good.”

Screengrab of Dr. Alfred Dawes on Instagram voicing concern about how SERHA came up with the $32 million internal cost estimate for the neurosurgical drill.

When contacted, MEDITECH declined to comment on what it paid for the equipment, citing ongoing litigation. SERHA’s chairman, Charles, didn’t respond to a question sent June 3 about how the entity came up with the internal costing of $32 million. SERHA’s personnel has also refused to respond to queries about the drill or the broader procurement pattern revealed in the Integrity Commission’s Quarterly Contract Awards (QCA) database regarding the frequency of multiple requests it makes for tenders while receiving only one bid in return.

####

Editor’s Notes:

This version of the script corrects the start date of when MEDITECH began receiving government contracts in the Integrity commission’s QCA database to reflect 2008. It had previously said 2009, which was an error. 2009 was when MEDITECH began receiving SERHA contracts and the distinction has also been made in this version of the script.

Though all the JMD values remain the same since the methodology was done correctly (just that the start date was reported incorrectly), the exchange rate used had to be adjusted as well to include 2008 so some US values differ slightly.

All references to the drill purchased last year remain at J$157.22:US$1, the average sell rate on the Bank of Jamaica website for 2024, but for all the other references and contracts between 2008 and 2020, the exchange rate used was adjusted to J$108.74:US$1, the average of the average sell rates for those years.

Jamaican Government Relents, Saying It Will Grant Access To Water Agreement With Vinci-Led Consortium, But Document Delivery To Be Delayed

Zahra Burton — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 18:02:05 GMT

A few hours after 18⁰ North's last publication calling into question the transparency of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) based on the Jamaican government’s refusal to share documents as allowed under the Access to Information Act (ATI Act), the state’s National Water Commission (NWC) reversed its decision. It said access would be granted to a copy of the PPP agreement it signed with Rio Cobre Water Limited (RCWL), the private consortium led by a local subsidiary of French construction company, Vinci.

However, the NWC said, it was requesting a period of “at least” another 45 days to send the 265-page document “with all commercially sensitive information redacted.” It continued, “In the event that the NWC is unable to complete the redaction exercise within the above timeline, we commit to providing you with an update indicating same and advising of the additional time required to complete the redaction exercise.”

This communication from the NWC on the evening of April 17 calls into question whether the NWC is intentionally dragging out the process, and if yes, why?

Why is a minimum of 45 days needed to make redactions to a 265-page document? How much information is likely to be redacted?

First, the delays…

NWC first acknowledged 18⁰ North’s request for a copy of the PPP agreement under the ATI Act on January 23, 2025. After 30 days, the NWC wrote requesting an additional 30 days to process the query, which is allowed under the law.

Then on March 14, seven weeks after the original request, it wrote denying the request on the basis that disclosing the information would harm commercial interests, an exemption allowed under the Act.

18⁰ North requested a review of that decision on March 19 on the basis that the Act still allows for disclosure of documents with the commercially-sensitive information redacted. Now, its latest response means that the redacted document won’t be forthcoming until the earliest June 1 - almost six months after the original request.

Another ATI Request Denied by NWC

This hasn’t been the only ATI request denied by NWC this year as 18⁰ North tries to understand whether consumer water rates will go up because of the project cost for the Rio Cobre Water Treatment Plant increasing to US$92 million (J$14.75 billion) from US$76 million (J$12.22 billion) amidst a surge in the interest rate and *no evidence of competitive bidding in the selection of RCWL as the government’s private partner for the project.

Even at this higher cost, the NWC’s regulator, the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR), that also approves consumer rates, hinted that rates may not have to go up as a result of this project if the NWC can lower the proportion of water it loses in the supply area to the mid-40% range, which would be a major improvement over the 70% of water that the NWC has, for decades, lost to issues like leaks and theft, meaning only 30% has traditionally been sold.

But when 18⁰ North on February 14 requested information regarding the NWC’s projected average rate of water loss for the project; the actual rate now for each zone within the supply area, which is supposed to include Kingston & St. Andrew, Portmore and wider St. Catherine; and the proportion of the 15 million additional gallons of water each day from the project that will supply each zone, the NWC denied the request on March 14 on the basis that disclosure would prejudice “commercial interests.”

When challenged by 18⁰ North about whose commercial interests were being compromised since similar information for some of the zones had been revealed publicly in the past by one of the current ministers overseeing water, the NWC finally relented on April 14, two months after the original request, outlining that the so-called non-revenue water percentages for Portmore and the metropolitan area of Kingston & St. Andrew were 45% each, and it was 75% for wider St. Catherine. It said the distribution of the water to the specific areas hadn’t been decided as yet.

As far as the projected rate of water loss associated with the project — after distribution lines to move water from the new treatment plant are replaced — the NWC stated, that “has not yet been determined.” If true, that would call into question how the entity was able to get the project approved in the first place without that key bit of information to determine project viability.

Requests About Other Projects Also Delayed by NWC

Even for a basic procurement request for a completely different project, the NWC replied that it needed more time.

The request made on March 24 merely asked questions like: Who is the contractor for the Western Parishes Water Supply and Resilience Improvement Program? When was the agreement signed? What was the procurement method used, the justification for this method and who approved the procurement method?

However, the NWC wrote this week on April 23 requesting 30 additional days to process the application.

Another March 7 ATI inquiry for copies of all contracts between the NWC and Vinci over the last 15 years was also met with a similar request for an extension. That second 30-day period expires the first week of May.

Conclusion

Whether all the information requested will eventually be forthcoming from the NWC remains to be seen. If and when the information is delivered, the extent to which redactions will complicate the public’s ability to understand the merits of these deals may make for yet another story.

####

Editor’s Notes:

*Although PPPs generally follow different processes from the standard public procurement procedures, the government’s PPP Policy still requires a bidding process in the selection of each private partner. Even for unsolicited proposals, the opportunity to challenge the offer is still supposed to be advertised.

The exchange rate used for the project cost being US$76 million (J$12.22 billion) in November 2022 and US$92 million (J$14.75 billion) in December 2024 was based on conversions in a letter in December 2024 from Minister Matthew Samuda, who shares responsibility for the water sector with Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness.

Thanks for reading 18 Degrees North Investigations ! This post is public so feel free to share it.

You can also become a paid subscriber and be first to get our premium stories in full when they’re released.

Jamaica's Finance Minister Fayval Williams Touts Responsible Government Spending In Budget Speech But Defends Vinci's High-Interest Rate Water Contract

Creative Debt Avoidance or Hidden Burden? The Case of the Rio Cobre Water Project PPP That May Raise Water Rates for Jamaicans

Transparency of Public-Private Partnerships in Question as Jamaican Government Blocks Access to J$14.75 Billion Vinci-Led Water Deal

Zahra Burton — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:54:51 GMT

NWC Acting President Kevin Kerr. Photo taken from NWC’s Facebook page.

This week, 18⁰ North is expecting the outcome of a review requested from Kevin Kerr, Acting President of Jamaica’s National Water Commission (NWC), regarding a denied Access to Information (ATI) request.

The request made by 18⁰ North was for a copy of the NWC’s Public-Private Partnership (PPP) agreement with Rio Cobre Water Limited (RCWL), the private consortium led by French construction giant Vinci, that’s supposed to construct and operate a new treatment plant in St. Catherine to add 15 million imperial gallons of water each day to the nation’s water supply.

The denial on March 14 followed a February exposé by 18⁰ North that revealed the project’s cost had quietly ballooned from US$76 million (J$12.22 billion) in 2022 to US$92 million (J$14.75 billion), which has still not been announced to the public. The increased cost came after Minister of Finance Fayval Williams in December 2024 overrode objections from Darlene Morrison, the most senior technocrat in her ministry, and approved a revised weighted average interest rate of 15.16% — up from 9.5% —even as the bulk of the financing was coming from international lenders IDB Invest and French development agency Proparco and global rates were declining. (The European Central Bank just this morning cut its main interest rate for the third time this year to 2.25% in response to slowing growth and Donald Trump’s tariffs.)

Though the Jamaican government won’t directly shoulder the debt, RCWL will recoup its investment by selling water to the government-owned NWC, which will impact the money-losing entity and, potentially, consumers — which is why approval from the Ministry of Finance was needed in the first place.

But despite these implications, the NWC refused to release the agreement, citing Section 20 of the ATI Act, which exempts disclosure if a document would reveal “trade secrets” and harm “commercial interests.”

PPPs

Public-Private Partnerships are some of the most capital-intensive contracts in Jamaica with each worth over US$10 million (J$1.58 billion).

During the March 2024 groundbreaking of the Rio Cobre Water Treatment Plant, Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness hailed PPPs as among the “creative” ways to make infrastructure investments without adding to the public debt.

Video: Jamaica’s Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness at the Rio Cobre Water Treatment Plant groundbreaking in March 2024 where he makes the case for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) as among the “creative ways” to fund infrastructure to avoid adding to the public debt so Jamaicans don’t get burdened with new taxes.

But because PPPs tend to rely more on private sources of funding rather than on the public purse, they can bypass traditional public procurement procedures.

Instead, according to the PPP Policy, revised in 2023, the Cabinet, through the PPP Units of the Development Bank of Jamaica (DBJ) and the Ministry of Finance and Public Service, takes responsibility for strategic oversight of the PPP programme, including policy and process. Each PPP in Jamaica must be approved by the Cabinet.

But this system of approval presents hurdles to accessing information.

A basic request sent on March 14 requesting whether the Rio Cobre contract had received Cabinet approval, the date of the approval and the amount approved, was denied by the Cabinet Office under Section 15 (1) of the ATI law, which shields Cabinet documents.

Are PPPs supposed to be shrouded in secrecy?

The difficulty in getting information regarding this particular PPP agreement seems at odds with the PPP Policy in Jamaica, which outlines that “the Government of Jamaica is committed to probity and transparency in all aspects of its PPP Programme” and that “transparency procedures are the Government’s commitment to ensure that information about the project is available to the public.”

The policy details that the Access to Information Act “will apply to all PPP projects,” and “PPP contracts may be published after they become effective, subject to any confidentiality requirements.”

It is on this basis that 18⁰ North on March 19 requested a review of the rejection from the NWC’s Kerr, as allowed under the law, and on the basis that Section 11 of the ATI Act mandates that non-exempt parts of documents be shared. A similar request for a review was also requested earlier this week on April 14 from Cabinet Secretary Audrey Sewell on the basis that within the PPP policy, it states that the “PPP list will be published after it is approved by Cabinet, and whenever it is updated” by the PPP Unit.

An ATI request for the Rio Cobre PPP agreement was sent on March 25 to the DBJ, which has a PPP unit, and it hasn’t been honored yet, though the initial 30-day clock hasn’t fully run its course.

IC requests PPP information

Separately, the Integrity Commission earlier this month announced that its Director of Investigation, Kevon Stephenson, had requisitioned twelve public bodies to submit detailed particulars on PPPs, land and asset divestitures and acquisitions that were executed by them from July to December 2024.

The IC said the goal is to create a web-based system to boost accountability and transparency of the information that would be requested bi-annually.

Of note is that more than half of the government bodies targeted under the IC's new initiative fall under Prime Minister Holness’ oversight, including the National Land Agency, Urban Development Corporation and the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation. However, PPPs from the NWC, which the prime minister also oversees, were not on the list as having been requisitioned.

The NWC’s Kerr has until April 18 to respond to 18⁰ North’s review request.

It remains to be seen whether the agreement will contain key details like the terms under which the NWC will buy water from RCWL and the original financing arrangement that was in place before the interest rate spike.

####

Creative Debt Avoidance or Hidden Burden? The Case of the Rio Cobre Water Project PPP That May Raise Water Rates for Jamaicans

Thanks for reading 18 Degrees North Investigations ! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Editing help provided by ChatGPT.

Opinion: Why Isn't The Electoral Commission of Jamaica Requiring That Contributions To Politically-Connected Foundations Be Declared?

Zahra Burton — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 13:01:21 GMT

SUBSCRIBER CONTENT

As of March 7, political parties and candidates would have been able to start accepting campaign donations for Jamaica’s next general election due by September 2025.

According to the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2016 (ROPA), not only are all candidates required to report contributions and expenditures of their campaigns, but contributors who donate $250,000 (US$1,728) or more or those who get government contracts at or above $500,000 (US$3,456) must also make a declaration.

However, the published guidance from the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) on March 4 merely stated that contributors are required to declare contributions “to a political party or candidate” without extending this requirement to the foundations of candidates or political parties.

This omission is concerning because since 2023, 18º North has been sounding the alarm that such foundations - often bearing charitable names - could be used as a loophole to bypass these reporting requirements.

Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness and Opposition Leader Mark Golding

For the 2020 general election - the first one where strict requirements for reporting contributions came into play - the ECJ stated when asked, “None of the candidates or parties listed any foundations in their disclosure reports.”

And yet, in an interview early in 2023, Tourism Minister Edmund Bartlett conceded that “very little” of his East Central Scholarship and Welfare Fund was used for political purposes. When reminded about that conversation and asked months later on August 14, 2023 how much was set aside for that use, he said in a WhatsApp message he didn’t recall, “but we don’t really use that source for campaigns.” He continued, “I don’t have the exact amount but believe me it must have been inconsequential as the fund doesn’t have enough to use for campaigns.” His foundation raised $29.6 million (US$204,537) and spent $24 million (US$166,289) mostly on scholarships, according to the financials filed at the Companies Office for 2020, the last general election year.

Tourism Minister Edmund Bartlett

In July 2024, 18º North was also able to show how the tax-exempt foundation of then Finance Minister Dr. Nigel Clarke, Growth and Opportunity Trust Limited, took in more than $91 million (US$631,644) from unexplained sources between its inception in 2018 and 2023, and most of that money was raised and spent during election years. (He publicly described the foundation as “my foundation” even after resigning as a director in February 2020.)

While this is not proof that the foundation was, in fact, used for election purposes, observers agree that there’s enough information about its fundraising and spending trends to warrant scrutiny.

Source: Financials filed at the Companies Office of Jamaica for Growth and Opportunity Trust Ltd. Amounts listed in Jamaican dollars. 2018 was a by-election in which Nigel Clarke ran for office and won. 2020 was a general election year.

And yet, the ECJ told 18º North “it is not within our remit to monitor donations to charities registered to politicians.” Other government agencies also gave a similar response.

The lack of monitoring of politician-linked foundations creates a black hole ripe for exploitation, according to former Political Ombudsman Donna Parchment Brown, who spoke with 18º North in 2022.

“It opens a door for a person who is intending to breach the integrity requirements of the Jamaican law,” she said.

Even if the money is going toward charitable purposes in a constituency, donors to these kind of foundations may still be expecting political favors.

At the very least, therefore, there should be a mechanism where Jamaicans should be able to learn whether contributors to these foundations are also the ones getting government contracts.

Size and Scope

In summer 2022 for a special series on politicians and their non-profits, an 18º North team researched and found more than 40 non-profits where the member of parliament was a director or the non-profit was named for a MP.

But unlike Clarke’s Growth and Opportunity Trust that was registered at the Department of Co-operatives and Friendly Societies (DCFS) as a tax-exempt charity, which, theoretically, subjects it to more scrutiny because the DCFS is supposed to carry out audits, most of the others, like Bartlett’s, are only registered at the Companies Office of Jamaica, which means they’re not tax-exempt, and so their activities appear to be going mostly unchecked. The Companies Office told 18º North that save and except items like checking that the financials are duly signed and certified and that the company’s name on the filing matches the one on file, “we do not check for accuracy.”

Of the more than 40 non-profits linked to MPs, one, Grenbell Trust, was incorporated in 1975 explicitly in part to aid in any elections run by the Jamaica Labour Party. There were also 14 named for a MP’s designated area or constituency.

However, since 18º North’s reporting began, three of the 14 - linked to Minister of National Security Dr. Horace Chang, Health Minister Dr. Christopher Tufton, and Minister without Portfolio in the Ministry of Economic, Growth and Job Creation with responsibility for Works, Robert Morgan - have since been removed from the register of companies either because the entity requested it, saying it never traded or had ceased trading, and/or following letters from the Companies Office inquiring whether they were still in business.

Here’s a list of the eleven remaining ones linked to ten MPs. Two of the foundations still make the list and are worth monitoring even though the MP has since resigned as a director:-

Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness - No longer a director. (JLP)
West Central Saint Andrew Trust
Opposition Leader Mark Golding (PNP)
Greater Trench Town Foundation Ltd.
Minister of Finance and the Public Service Fayval Williams (JLP)
St. Andrew Eastern Development Foundation Ltd.
*Opposition Spokesperson on Finance and the Public Service Julian Robinson (PNP)
(S E S A F ) South East St. Andrew Development Foundation
Minister of Science, Energy, Telecommunications and Transport Daryl Vaz (JLP)
West Portland Development Fund Ltd.
Minister of Tourism Edmund Bartlett (JLP)
East Central Scholarship and Welfare Fund Ltd.
Minister of Labour and Social Security Pearnel Charles Jr. (JLP)
Build SEC Development Fund Ltd.
MP Michelle Charles (JLP)
East St. Thomas Trust Ltd.
MP Lester Michael Henry - No longer a director (JLP)
Clarendon Central Social Development Foundation Trust Ltd.
MP Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert (JLP)
South Trelawny Basic Schools Association Ltd.
South Trelawny Edu-Skills Centre Ltd.

Paid subscribers can unlock an even fuller list of foundations linked to politicians by clicking on the button below.

Fuller List of Foundations

What does the law say about requiring declarations of donations to foundations?

The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, as is, defines donations and contributions more broadly than just those made directly to a candidate or political party.

One definition of donation, for example, is any sponsorship provided to or “for the benefit of” a candidate or a registered political party. One definition of contribution is a donation “made to a group or an organization that is acting in support of a registered political party or a candidate."

But when the ECJ was asked whether those references in the existing legislation mean that it should already be requiring declarations of donations made to the foundations of political candidates, the entity didn't respond.

My View…and Bartlett’s

I believe declarations of contributions to foundations linked to candidates should be mandatory. The information collected should then be shared immediately with the Integrity Commission (IC) so it can be cross-checked against the IC’s database of all government contracts awarded and the findings should then be made PUBLIC.

Better yet, all donors and donations should be made public so we, the public, can do our own assessments and help the accountability process along.

Currently, even though the ECJ knows the identity of the donors who make contributions directly to candidates or political parties, that information isn’t shared with the public. Additionally, information submitted to the IC’s database of government contracts since the third quarter of 2020 has also been withheld from the public because of an interpretation of the IC’s law, and that shouldn't be the case.

Even Minister Bartlett, when asked, had to agree that the ECJ should “perhaps” have an interest in monitoring contributions to these foundations.

“I don't think MPs conflate their charitable work with political campaigning,” he said, but sometimes the lines get “blurred” giving out welfare to constituents during the campaign period. So, “it might be for good order” that candidates be required to report contributions to their foundations, he said.

This isn’t a small deal. The ECJ needs to respond. Greater transparency and accountability are needed in Jamaica’s political financing system.

####

Reporting contributed by Isa Ridgard (deceased), Damario Patterson and Andrew McDaniel.

Editor’s Note:
*In 2024, the Companies Office wrote to Julian Robinson’s (S E S A F ) South East St. Andrew Development Foundation more than once asking if it was still carrying on business, and on December 23, 2024 it warned the company that it would be struck off from the register of companies in three months, which would have expired earlier in March 2025. However, the company is still listed as “Active” on the Companies Office website, hence why it was included in the list of foundations linked to politicians.

Exchange rate used is J$144.67:US$1, which is the average of the average yearly exchange sell rates found on the Bank of Jamaica’s website between 2018 and 2023, the years covering the financials lodged at the Companies Office for Growth and Opportunity Trust Limited. For simplicity, this rate is also used for other conversions.