The President of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) is certainly not a person whose views can be easily ignored. After all he does represent an important grouping in our body politic. Therefore knowing that he appreciates the weight of his opinion in our society, I was startled to read where in endorsing the announcement of Dennis Chung to lead the Financial Investigations Division (FID), Mr Metry Seaga, PSOJ President, did not explain why Dennis Chung was still a good choice, despite having expressed very clear views which would place him on a collision course with the investigators of the FID, when it finally commences its investigation into the financial affairs of the Prime Minister (PM), as recommended by the Integrity Commission.
The President of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) is certainly not a person whose views can be easily ignored. After all he does represent an important grouping in our body politic.
At the outset it is of course of importance to note that any report that the FID furnishes, as recommended by the Integrity Commission, will first go to the Minister of Finance, Fayal Williams before she tables it in Parliament. The finance minister serves at the pleasure of the PM. Under our imported unreformed Westminster system, the PM and the legislators from the ruling political party dominate the Lower House and the agenda of the House.
This is undoubtedly a watershed moment in the history of governance in our post-1962 experiment in democracy. Never before has the Division been invited to investigate the financial affairs of a PM. Thus, it is important for confidence to be retained in such an institution, that it gets this right. Enter into this scenario the announcement by the Government, that Mr Chung, a well-known Chartered Accountant and a public commentator, has been selected by the Public Services Commission (PSC) to be the Chief Technical Director of the Division as of the 1st June 2025. This is the same Chung who would have expressed views in the past about the quality of the report produced by the Integrity Commission, following an examination of the PM’s financial affairs.
This is undoubtedly a watershed moment in the history of governance in our post-1962 experiment in democracy. Never before has the Division been invited to investigate the financial affairs of a PM. Thus, it is important for confidence to be retained in such an institution, that it gets this right.
There are those who assert that Mr Chung is entitled, as provided for under our constitution, to speak freely about matters of public interest. This is so correct, but such an assertion by persons who should know better, ignores the obvious screaming point: Mr Chung in his pronouncements on the very issue over which FID will be conducting a most consequential investigation, has made it known to the public that he has formed the view that the PM has nothing to answer to and that all this fuss is much to do about nothing. His ability to lead and inspire confidence in a team of objective investigators, having told Jamaica what he thinks of the Integrity Commission’s report, has the seeds of a confidence sapping moment. I would not accuse Mr Chung of actual bias. I would, however, based on his public utterances on the matter, saddle him with the label of one who has displayed apparent bias.
Mr Chung in his pronouncements on the very issue over which FID will be conducting a most consequential investigation, has made it known to the public that he has formed the view that the PM has nothing to answer to and that all this fuss is much to do about nothing.
Real Danger
For those of us who appreciate how having or displaying a biased view can undermine accountability, this is and will remain troubling. There is a real danger that if during the investigative process Mr Chung comes upon information that challenges his previous conclusion, he would not support his investigators with the resources required to get to the bottom of the issues that have cast a long shadow over our PM. We must be clear when discussing bias in this instance that we are not referring to Chung’s moral compass, but rather the risk attendant on placing him in that position given the position he has already exposed. Consequently, I cringe when I listen to those who in support of Mr Chung’s elevation have gone out of their way to tell us that he is a man of integrity and high professional standards. This is to suggest that those who oppose his elevation are questioning his moral turpitude when this is not part of the concern, and it betrays a deep lack of understanding at what is at play when it is said that there is apparent bias in each situation. The Gleaner’s Editorial (3.6.25) on the issue, whilst correctly making the point that “implicit bias,… is a live issue”, seems to suggest that Mr Chung can somehow, assure the public “that this perceived bias wont become real”. This again is wrong as where bias of this kind is accepted as being engaged, the only cure for it, is that the affected person must recuse him or herself. This is because once you accept that there is a real danger of bias, you do not then go on to allow that person to participate in the process, as you would then be taking a risk, when you have already accepted that there is a possibility. The people of Jamaica and Mr Chung should not be placed in that rather bizarre position, where he is being asked to in effect cure the bias that is apparent for all who wish to acknowledge it.
The issue of bias becomes even weightier when we note two other factors which perhaps by themselves are not so worrying but when taken with Mr Chung’s utterances should cause one to really be uncomfortable appointment. The first is the fact that we now know that when the post was first advertised in November 2024, the job specification (as was the case two decades ago) specified experience in law enforcement as an essential requirement. After the first round of interviews failed to produce a suitable candidate, the job specification was altered by January 2025 to remove that essential requirement. Mr Chung does not have those twelve years of law enforcement experience. The second factor is that Mr Chung, it is said, is a cycling partner of the PM and of course on this second factor one must accept that in the Caribbean, people do know people. However, it would take a hefty dose of naivety to suggest that when taken together, all three factors do not strengthen the cries of apparent bias, not because Mr Chung lacks a moral compass, but again I say because they tell us that there is a real danger of bias that is inherent in this appointment.
It would take a hefty dose of naivety to suggest that when taken together, all three factors do not strengthen the cries of apparent bias, not because Mr Chung lacks a moral compass, but again I say because they tell us that there is a real danger of bias that is inherent in this appointment.
Previous Chief Technical Directors (CTDs)
Those who express shock at the position taken by the Opposition have come out with some half truths that are being presented as facts. The first is that Chung would not be the first CTD with no law enforcement experience and in support of this assertion we are served up with the names of Ordinor Tucker, Keith Darien, Pamela Ffolkes and Robin Skyes. Prior to the enactment of the Financial Investigations Divisions Act 2010, the FID was a revenue enhancement department within the Ministry of Finance and Ms Ffolkes’s tenure was therefore prior to the FID being given the statutory powers that it has to probe money laundering and the financing of terrorists activities etc. It is therefore why then Minister Audley Shaw would have announced in November 2010, the replacement of Ms Ffolkes as CTD by someone who would have served as a Gazetted Officer in the Jamaica Constabulary Force. Both Mr Darien and Tucker, who had served under other CTDs, were asked to serve as acting CTDs, until permanent appointments were made and of course Robin Skyes is recognised as one of the Caribbean’s leading authorities on money laundering. It is easy to miss these important nuggets when your focus is not on the issue of governance, but on political point scoring.
It is easy to miss these important nuggets when your focus is not on the issue of governance, but on political point scoring.
Recission by the Minister
The second half truth that you would have heard is that which I credit to the Finance Minister, who has described the request for recission as reckless and dangerous. In effect she framed it as something that would be unprecedented in our nation’s history, if the Minister were to rescind Chung’s appointment. Of course former PM Bruce Golding in 2007, did something akin to rescission when the Public Services Commission came to the conclusion that Professor Dr Stephen Vasciannie should be recommended to the post of Solicitor General. The former PM, recommended that the Governor General should terminate the tenure of the members of the PSC, as they were determined to stick with their choice of Dr Vasciannie. That saga ended with a compromise of the court action but Dr Vasciannie was never appointed. I would be shocked if Mrs Fayval Williams or members of the Cabinet were unaware of that Golding/Vasciannie saga, as Dr Horace Chang, Edmund Bartlett Daryl Vaz and of course the PM, were members of Bruce Golding’s Cabinet. Rescission was achieved in all but name Mrs Williams. I would suggest that unlike in the case of Dr Vasciannie, this time around, the fact that Mr Chung is affected by his apparent can offer the Minister a fact based reason for recommending to the Governor General that he should terminate the tenure of the PSC for misbehaviour. In that, one would love to think, as is the case with modern recruitment to high profile roles, that the PSC would have considered extraneous material, such as Mr Chung’s public utterances. Having read or listened to Mr Chung’s comments, how could they have thought that this would have been a sensible recommendation, not to mention of course the other two factors (being the cycling partner of the PM and alteration of the job specification). This suggests misbehaviour (understood as improper) on the part of the PSC. Accordingly, and this is a point that partisan persons who support Chung’s appointment should consider, the PSC seems to have forgotten that the wider Jamaican populace expects that the Chief Technical Director of this investigatory department will be free from any semblance of real bias. Jamaica, seemingly had no one advocating for her when the PSC sat to interview Mr Chung or when it conducted its deliberations.
Conclusion
It is too simplistic , and frankly it is lazy to suggest that those who oppose Chung’s appointment are all Comrades. It is next to irresponsible to suggest that those who demonstrate against Chung’s recommendation are engaged in that undefined conduct known as ‘badmindism’. It is tempting to run with that line, but before you do, please note that there is certainly enough objective evidence out there that should cause the objective onlooker to feel discomforted about Mr Chung’s recommendation.
This is not about Mr Chung, a decent man from what I have observed of him in the public sphere. However, it is about governance and once you accept that basic fact, and Mr Chung’s declared bias, his recommendation to be our next Chief Technical Director at the FID casts doubt on our commitment to good governance.
This is not about Mr Chung, a decent man from what I have observed of him in the public sphere. However, it is about governance and once you accept that basic fact, and Mr Chung’s declared bias, his recommendation to be our next Chief Technical Director at the FID casts doubt on our commitment to good governance. That view is not ‘badmindism’ or vulgarity. It is what happens in a democracy anxious to preserve its institutions going forward. We cannot preserve the reputation of the FID by inviting the PSC to offer an expos factoexplanation as to why it changed the job specification. The only cure, sadly I would say, is for us as a nation to say with one voice, Mr Chung thank you, but no thank you on this occasion.
Matondo Mukulu is a practising Barrister.