Why Dr. Andrew Wheatley must step down from the Cabinet immediately

Cabinet member and MP for South Central, St Catherine, Dr Andrew Wheatley must remove himself from the Cabinet and focus on clearing his name.

For him to remain and tough it out only embarrasses his friend, the Prime Minister Andrew Holness and lessens the credibility of the Government.

The Integrity Commission has recommended that Dr Wheatley should be charged with four offences, namely: 

Charge 1- Knowingly making a false statement in a statutory declaration, a breach of the Parliamentary Integrity of Members Act 1973.

Charge 2 – Knowingly making a false statement in a statutory declaration, which is a breach of the Integrity Commission Act 2017

Charge 3 – Failing without reasonable cause to provide any information as the Director of Information and Complaints may require. This is a breach of the Integrity Commission Act 2017

Charge 4- Illicit enrichment contrary to the Corruption Prevention Act 2001.

These are serious charges, but it must be stressed that Dr Wheatley has not yet been formally charged. So why should he step down from the Cabinet?

Well, he should for appearances’ sake and as a government member, he is held to a higher standard.

The Integrity Commission’s revelations should not be taken lightly, and the Prime Minister must be seen to adhere to governance and transparency expectations. His Government members must comply with filing their statutory declarations in an orderly manner, and they must not balk against doing so. 

Dr Wheatley has assembled a cracking legal team that includes Peter Champagnie and Ransford Braham. He obviously has a penny or two.

The Integrity Commission says that the Minister Without Portfolio for Science, Technology and Special Projects cannot account for $164 million during the nine-year period, December 31, 3013 and December 31, 2022 and was not forthcoming in providing necessary information on his financial affairs. 

Dr Wheatley says he is innocent and that the conclusions are inaccurate. He went on to say that people from humble beginnings should be encouraged to participate in public service and should not be reticent about doing so because people will defame them and destroy their reputation.

Now that’s all very well, but he would be better served by providing evidence that debunks the Integrity Commission’s report. Dr Wheatley needs to come good with a forensic report of his earnings and expenditure with audited accounts. Until he does so, he is putting his Prime Minister in an untenable situation and feeding the flames of cynicism and the notion that Jamaican politicians take any opportunity to enrich themselves and are all crooked.

The Prime Minister has been good to him; now he must show reciprocity.

The church, civil society, and the media have not come out and said this is terrible and unacceptable by a member of the government. For the most part, many Jamaicans have not condemned Dr Wheatley and have not made it an issue of national importance. The question here is, why? 

In more sophisticated countries, Dr Wheatley would have stepped down by now- he shouldn’t have to be asked; it should be so self-evident.

Right here, one sees the shortcomings of Jamaican politics and how corruption is part of the body politic. 

To dispel this, Dr. Wheatley must put all his energies into refuting what has been revealed. It’s no good going on about being a poor boy from humble beginnings and that the establishment is looking to take him down. We’ve heard that song before.

It may be the case that international bodies are looking at this and how it plays out. Already, Michael Misick of the Turks and Caicos Islands was unable to explain his wealth and was involved in some questionable transactions.

The public will latch onto Dr Wheatley’s four  Scotiabank accounts holding $595 million. That right there will lead many to deduce that he had money well above his earnings as a public servant and begs the question, where did he get such sums from?

Perhaps he was a wiz investor like Warren Buffett, a disciple of the compounding effect.

Can Dr Wheatley’s level of wealth be accounted for? Can it be traced and linked back to a lawful source of income?

He has to answer these questions.

The Integrity Commission has found Dr Wheatley in breach of the Corruption Prevention Act and has to answer the case of illicit enrichment.

According to the Integrity Commission, between 2013 and 2022, his known lawful income was $187 million. His total expenditure and assets over the period were $352 million, leaving $164 million unaccounted for.

Dr Wheatley has to explain this. Come out and prove the Integrity Commission has this all wrong and indeed maligned his good name and reputation. The onus is on him.

This is a matter that should be of national interest and puts the spotlight on the Andrew Holness administration. Already, there are some eight similar cases by Parliamentarians that the Integrity Commission is looking into, including the Prime Minister.

There is a lot at stake here.

In 2018, after intense pressure, Dr Wheatley finally resigned as Minister of Energy ( the Petrojam scandal) after the Prime Minister initially defended him. He was not criminally charged and was not made to refute the allegations. He sat on the backbenches for seven years before Prime Minister Holness brought him back into the Cabinet, only for history to repeat itself.

Some say that Prime Minister Andrew Holness was unwise to bring back Dr Wheatley, letting his heart rule his head. However one looks at it, it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative on who becomes part of his Cabinet.

Again in 2018, it was a case of lack of accountability with politicians running amok and unfettered. There always need to be standards of probity.  

Seven years ago, Dr Wheatley faced accusations of nepotism, corruption, mismanagement and staff victimisation at the state-run refinery Petrojam. The Integrity Commission’s investigation into that also led to Dr Wheatley stepping down as Minister of Energy.

Again, it doesn’t look good.

What can be said here is that owning assets disproportionate to his earnings in and of themselves is not too concerning, but nevertheless, it has to be explained.

Employing investment strategies, he may have made a buck or two, but he should have declared it, thus not placing himself in this predicament.

Will the Prime Minister now separate the wheat from the chaff, or will he conclude this is a headache he can do without and send Dr Wheatley to political Hades, never to return?

Then again, he may decide to stand by his friend all the way and duke it out together against the Integrity Commission’s findings in both their cases.