分类： politics

A government-appointed review committee has sounded the alarm over widespread governance vulnerabilities at Jamaica’s University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), tracing decades of systemic flaws to the facility’s outdated 76-year-old founding legislation. The UHWI Institutional Review Committee, led by chairman Howard Mitchell, is pushing for comprehensive updates to the 1948 University Hospital Act, arguing that the decades-old law has left gaping accountability loopholes that have opened the door to institutional abuse.

The call for legislative reform comes as a direct response to a damning auditor general’s report that exposed significant governance failures at the public teaching hospital, prompting the Jamaican government to task the independent committee with investigating identified weaknesses and drafting actionable remedies to strengthen oversight, accountability and long-term operational performance.

Addressing reporters at a Tuesday press briefing, Mitchell emphasized that the 1948 legislation was crafted for a vastly different healthcare and governance landscape, and has failed to adapt to Jamaica’s modern standards of public sector accountability. He cited one striking example of regulatory gaps in the law: Section 14 of the act grants the hospital’s board of management unrestricted duty-free import privileges, with no clear limitations on what types of goods can be imported or under what conditions. While the provision was intended for hospital-related imports, the unregulated open door has evolved into a pathway for misuse that demands urgent correction, Mitchell explained.

The committee’s final assessment confirmed that the law, which established UHWI’s governance structure nearly 80 years ago, is completely misaligned with the practical demands of running a 21st-century public teaching hospital. Beyond broad regulatory gaps, investigators identified a litany of specific structural issues: an oversized board of management, overlapping official appointments, ambiguous lines of operational authority, weak internal oversight mechanisms, and persistent confusion over the division of responsibilities between the Jamaican government and The University of the West Indies (UWI), which shares governance of the facility.

Mitchell noted that this dual governance model has created dangerous ambiguity around accountability and decision-making power. “The legislation may have been acceptable at the time and appropriate at the time, but it has created a confusion between board oversight and operational roles, and that is a cardinal sin in management. The board governs, the management manages, and we have seen situations where that line has been crossed,” he said.

Another critical finding centered on long-running uncertainty around UHWI’s legal status as a public body, which has enabled years of non-compliance with mandatory government procurement and financial reporting rules. Many hospital officials have operated under the incorrect assumption that UHWI’s partial UWI administration and position outside the traditional public health system exempts it from full adherence to Jamaica’s public sector accountability framework.

Committee member Professor Alvin Wint, an emeritus professor of international business at UWI, revealed that this confusion persisted as recently as 2023, months before the current review was launched. Prior to the appointment of current UHWI chairman Patrick Hylton, UHWI’s own legal officer retained a private law firm to issue a formal determination on whether the hospital qualified as a public body under Jamaican law. This step struck the review committee as particularly remarkable, Wint explained, because Jamaican law clearly defines a public body as any entity established by statutory legislation under government control — a description that applies unambiguously to UHWI.

This fundamental misunderstanding fostered a years-long institutional culture where compliance with the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act was treated as optional rather than mandatory, the committee found.

To address these systemic flaws, the panel has put forward a series of core recommendations: downsizing the hospital’s oversized board, implementing formal term limits for board appointments, immediately hiring a dedicated corporate secretary to strengthen administrative compliance, tightening procurement oversight, and restructuring UHWI’s operational framework to meet modern teaching hospital standards. Additional proposals include clarifying the authority of UHWI management over UWI clinical staff assigned to the facility, and rebuilding strategic governance systems that have eroded over decades of neglect.

Health and Wellness Minister Dr Christopher Tufton confirmed that the Jamaican government has already prioritized the legislative reform process, after Cabinet discussed the committee’s findings and formally backed the overhaul. “That’s a Government of Jamaica, Ministry of Health mandate, and we intend to put whatever systems are in place to immediately commence a review of the legislation in keeping with modern times and the mandate of the institution,” Tufton said.

The minister added that the reform push is a core component of a broader government effort to rebuild public trust in UHWI, which was severely damaged following the release of the auditor general’s report and the subsequent public controversy. “There is a confidence issue that we need to resolve. We need to bridge that gap and we need to show that we are willing to confront the issues, to face them head on, and to do something about them,” Tufton said.

A government-commissioned independent review of Jamaica’s flagship medical facility, the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), has uncovered critical systemic failures rooted in 75-year-old governing legislation that opened the door to widespread misconduct and significant institutional harm. The review panel, led by seasoned Jamaican attorney Howard Mitchell, concluded that the aging 1948 University Hospital Act is riddled with unaddressed loopholes that have effectively created an unregulated space for abuse across multiple areas of the hospital’s operations. Mitchell is now pushing for urgent, comprehensive overhauls to the decades-old law, emphasizing that outdated regulatory frameworks have left gaping holes in institutional accountability that cannot be allowed to remain in place. He argues that modernizing the legislation is a non-negotiable step to realign UHWI’s governance structure with the operational and ethical demands of 21st-century public healthcare. Beyond the systemic governance gaps, the committee’s findings paint a stark picture of tangible harm to both public finances and patient care: the weak regulatory environment allowed the hospital to lose billions of dollars over time, while thousands of Jamaican residents relying on the premier facility have been failed by the system and denied access to appropriate medical treatment. The full, detailed findings of the review committee are scheduled to be published in extended reports on pages 4 and 5 of the relevant publication.

Nearly a year after a brutal murder of a schoolteacher linked to unregulated ride-hailing services prompted an immediate industry ban, Jamaica’s government has taken a major step toward formalizing long-term rules for the rapidly growing mobility sector. Transport Minister Daryl Vaz confirmed Tuesday that the national Cabinet has formally signed off on plans to develop a country-wide ride-hailing policy, which will serve as the bedrock for a full regulatory regime to govern all app-based ride services operating across the island.

Speaking during his contribution to the 2026/27 Sectoral Debate in Parliament, Vaz emphasized that bringing structure and oversight to ride-hailing remains one of the administration’s top priorities as it works to modernize Jamaica’s entire transport network. “Our goal is to build a system that delivers safe, regulated, and accessible mobility for every Jamaican,” he told lawmakers.

To keep the policy development process on track and ensure all affected parties have a seat at the table, Vaz announced that a dedicated steering committee has already been formed to provide cross-sector oversight and facilitate ongoing stakeholder engagement. The next critical milestone in the process will be the drafting of a policy Green Paper, which outlines the government’s initial proposals for public discussion. Vaz confirmed that work on this draft is already progressing at pace, with a target to table the document in Parliament within the next four months.

In a commitment to full transparency, the minister added that once the draft policy is completed, it will be opened up to wide-ranging public scrutiny. This open consultation period will allow ordinary citizens, existing ride-hailing operators, transport unions, and other key stakeholders to share feedback that will shape the final regulatory framework. Vaz outlined the core priorities the new policy will deliver: beyond just bringing unregulated services into compliance, the framework will protect public safety, foster fair competition between all transport providers, and improve overall mobility access for communities across Jamaica.

Vaz also issued a clear warning to any unlicensed operators currently working outside existing Jamaican transport laws. “There are already laws and regulations that govern the transport sector in this country, and nobody — no matter how large or powerful they are — will be allowed to undermine that,” he said. “You either operate within the rules we have put in place, or we will take appropriate enforcement action.”

In a parallel move to address ongoing industry concerns, Vaz noted that he has agreed with Tourism Minister Edmund Bartlett to hold a dedicated meeting with sector stakeholders, following multiple requests for discussions to align ongoing industry needs with the government’s policy rollout.

The current push for formal regulation traces back to June 2024, when Vaz announced an immediate ban on all unregulated ride-hailing and ride-sharing apps, a decision that came in direct response to a national tragedy. Just one day before the ban was announced, Jamaican police confirmed that human remains found in Salt River, Clarendon, were believed to be those of Danielle Anglin, a missing primary and infant school teacher from St Peter Claver. Anglin had disappeared on May 13 while traveling to work from her home in Hellshire, St Catherine, after booking a trip through a ride-hailing app.

Then Deputy Commissioner of Police Fitz Bailey told reporters at the time that the primary suspect in Anglin’s kidnapping and murder had already been arrested on sexual assault charges back in 2015. He also highlighted a critical gap in oversight: the lack of formal information sharing between local law enforcement and unregulated ride-hailing companies had created major barriers to the investigation. In July 2024, forensic testing officially confirmed the remains belonged to Anglin, and 45-year-old Lascelles Morgan, a convicted sex offender and taxi operator from Willowdene, St Catherine, was arrested and charged with murder and kidnapping. Morgan died in November 2024, 12 days after attempting suicide while in custody at Portmore Police Station.

When announcing the 2024 ban during his contribution to that year’s Sectoral Debate, Vaz explained he had been compelled to act after receiving formal correspondence from a senior police official outlining the public safety risks. At the time, he proposed the ban remain in place until formal regulations could be put in place to require mandatory background checks for all ride-hailing drivers, conducted jointly by app operators and Jamaican law enforcement and transport authorities. The new national policy is designed to address exactly these gaps, tackling longstanding safety vulnerabilities while creating a fair, level operating environment for all transport service providers across the country.

The political fallout from a chaotic mace confrontation during last week’s parliamentary sitting in Jamaica deepened dramatically on Tuesday, as House Speaker Juliet Holness publicly called out Opposition Member of Parliament Angela Brown Burke, revealing a pattern of defiance against the presiding officer’s authority that stretches back months. The high-profile clash, which unfolded during debate on the critical National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority (NaRRA) Bill, has thrown a spotlight on long-simmering divisions between the government and opposition inside Gordon House, Jamaica’s parliamentary building.

Opening Tuesday’s scheduled sitting of the House of Representatives, Holness opened with a lengthy, formal statement addressing the explosive scenes from the prior week, centering her remarks on defending the foundational role of parliamentary discipline and the authority of the institution itself. The Speaker confirmed that Brown Burke, who represents the St Andrew South Western constituency, had already disrupted legislative business during a tense sitting held on March 5 this year. Holness recalled that on that earlier occasion, Brown Burke left her seat and loudly declared, “Yuh waan mi fi behave like a virago? Mi a go behave like a virago.”

“This was not the first occasion on which conduct of this nature has tested the authority of the Chair by the same member,” Holness told assembled lawmakers. “Restraint was exercised in the hope that the matter would not be repeated. But restraint must never be mistaken for permission, patience must never be mistaken for weakness, and silence must never be mistaken for acceptance.”

The Tuesday remarks came days after Brown Burke was formally named and suspended from Parliament after grabbing the ceremonial mace — a centuries-old symbol of parliamentary authority — during heated committee-stage debate on the NaRRA Bill. The incident triggered chaotic scenes in the chamber that forced officials to temporarily suspend all proceedings.

But in an interview with the Jamaica Observer conducted hours after Holness’ Tuesday address, Brown Burke forcefully pushed back against the Speaker’s narrative, rejecting the framing of her actions as an unprovoked breach of protocol. She argued that the confrontation was the end result of months of growing frustration, rooted in what she describes as systemic efforts to sideline and silence opposition lawmakers during parliamentary debates.

“We haven’t made the case to the Jamaican people. We have sat quietly, we have protested inside of the House, we have spoken to the Speaker, we have spoken to others about the attitude in the House, which prevents individuals on the Opposition side from actually participating in the discussions and in the debate,” Brown Burke said.

The opposition MP alleged that parliamentary standing orders are enforced inconsistently across government and opposition members, with opposition lawmakers routinely blocked from accessing speaking time during key debates. “What someone on the Government side will get away with, we won’t,” she said, accusing the Speaker of overt partisan bias in how she presides over proceedings. She further claimed that the parliamentary microphone system has been “weaponized” against opposition members, who are often muted or blocked from having their remarks included in the official parliamentary record.

Brown Burke explained that tensions boiled over during last week’s NaRRA debate after she made three separate attempts to intervene in discussion, only to be intentionally ignored by the Speaker. “On three different occasions I wanted to make a statement to intervene in the discussion… The Speaker looked at me and just turned her head and looked to the other side,” she claimed.

While she openly acknowledged that grabbing the mace violated formal parliamentary rules, she maintained that her action was a deliberate act of protest against what she called consistent, ongoing disrespect toward opposition representatives. “And so I got up. And, as I put it, I interfaced with the mace. And we know what the standing order says. I’m not pretending that it is sanctioned by the standing orders. Not at all. But it was because of that pushing, that ignoring, that disrespectful behaviour of the Speaker, time and time again,” she said.

Brown Burke also pushed back against Holness’ recounting of the March 5 “virago” incident, saying her original remarks were misrepresented. “I said, ‘Do I have to behave like a virago for me to be heard?’ That was what I said, and I thought that was an appropriate question. Because I don’t believe that I should have to behave like a virago to be heard,” she told the Observer.

In her address to parliament, Holness emphasized that the dispute goes far beyond the conduct of a single lawmaker, framing it as a fundamental challenge to the institutional order and authority of Jamaica’s parliament. “The mace is not a decoration. It is not a prop. It is not an object to be used in protest. It is the symbol of the authority of this House,” the Speaker declared.

She also criticized broader opposition behavior after Brown Burke’s suspension, noting that the opposition leader and other opposition lawmakers staged a standing protest with chants in direct defiance of the Chair’s authority. Holness further revealed that she had previously overlooked “derogatory sotto voce references, slurs, and disrespectful posturing” from a small group of opposition lawmakers, choosing to allow legislative business to proceed rather than escalate conflict.

Despite the sharp escalation of tensions between the two sides, both Holness and Brown Burke have called for a broader reassessment of the tone and rules of engagement inside Jamaica’s parliament. “Order is not the enemy of democracy. Order is what makes democracy possible,” Holness told lawmakers.

For her part, Brown Burke said she hopes the high-profile controversy will force the institution to confront and address the systemic inequities that have stoked tension between government and opposition members. “Let’s draw a line. Let’s determine how we interface with each other. But let us stop the hypocrisy,” she said.

Amidst a growing public rift across the Caribbean Community (Caricom) over the reappointment of Belizean economist Dr. Carla Barnett as the bloc’s secretary-general, Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit has publicly thrown his full weight behind the move, confirming his government’s endorsement of the outcome of the regional vote.

Speaking at a press briefing held in Roseau on Wednesday, Skerrit made clear that from his administration’s perspective, Barnett’s reappointment is a settled matter. “As far as I’m concerned, Dr. Carla Barnett has been reappointed as secretary-general, and in Dominica’s style, we are team players, we support the decision and we move on,” Skerrit told reporters. He added that while he would not object to reopening discussions if the Caricom Bureau or Conference of Heads of Government chooses to do so, the existing process already followed proper procedure, delivered a clear majority in Barnett’s favor, and should be respected as the final outcome.

The controversy surrounding Barnett’s second term dates back to February’s Caricom summit hosted in Basseterre, St. Kitts and Nevis. In March, Caricom chairman and St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Dr. Terrance Drew released a short statement confirming that Barnett had secured the “required majority” of regional leader votes to earn reappointment. However, the process has been challenged by several high-profile regional leaders ever since.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar of Trinidad and Tobago, who was absent from the closed-door retreat where the vote was held, has openly questioned the legitimacy of the procedure. She has rejected Drew’s claim that Trinidad and Tobago was not uninvited to the meeting, and is demanding access to official meeting minutes, documentation of Barnett’s performance appraisal, and records of the 2021 appointment process to verify that current procedures align with the rules established for that cycle. Though Trinidad and Tobago first called for a special regional leaders’ meeting to debate the dispute, it did not attend a virtual heads gathering held to address the issue in April.

Last month, the debate escalated when Sir Ronald Sanders, Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador to the United States and the Organization of American States, publicly called on Barnett to step down. Speaking on ABS Television, Sanders argued that the ongoing controversy created a barrier to regional integration progress. “If I were the secretary general of Caricom and I’m being quite serious here and this had occurred, I would have resigned and I would have resigned because I would have said I must not stand in the way of Caribbean integration and the movement forward,” Sanders said.

Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness has meanwhile pushed for a full special heads of government meeting to resolve the deadlock, noting that public discourse around the dispute has sown widespread unease across the bloc. Speaking to the *Trinidad Guardian* in New York in April, where he was honored by the American Foundation for the University of the West Indies, Holness said behind-the-scenes talks are already underway to organize direct engagement between all regional leaders. “I think it is distressing for a lot of persons within the region regarding what is being said in the public domain, but I know that all the heads are working behind the scenes to have this matter resolved,” he said, adding that further diplomatic consultations are imminent, including a planned conversation with Persad-Bissessar as part of the process.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — In ongoing high-stakes oral arguments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Venezuela has reaffirmed its long-held stance that the United Nations’ highest court for state-to-state disputes lacks authority to rule on its centuries-old territorial conflict with neighboring Guyana. The dispute centers on the resource-rich Essequibo region, a 61,600-square-mile territory that makes up nearly two-thirds of modern Guyana, which Venezuela claims as its own sovereign land.

Speaking as Venezuela’s second representative to the ICJ, Professor Makane Moise Mbengue pushed back against Guyana’s core argument that the 1899 Arbitral Award — which originally set the disputed border between the two nations — is legally valid and binding. While Mbengue acknowledged that the 1899 award provides historical context for the conflict, he emphasized that it should not block a genuine negotiated resolution between the two South American nations. Both Mbengue and lead Venezuelan representative Samuel Moncada displayed pins showing Essequibo as part of Venezuelan territory during their presentations.

Moncada opened Venezuela’s arguments earlier this week by rejecting what he called Guyana’s “erroneous and misleading narrative” surrounding the dispute. He stressed that the 1966 Geneva Agreement, reached by both parties to settle the conflict after Venezuela declared the 1899 award null and void in 1962, remains the sole binding legal framework governing the issue. Unlike a court-imposed ruling — which inevitably leaves one side victorious at the other’s expense — Moncada noted the Geneva Agreement was crafted as a peace pact that prioritizes direct bilateral negotiation to reach a practical, mutually acceptable outcome. He added that the agreement is explicitly designed to help the two nations move past the harmful legacy of colonialism, which created the dispute in the first place.

Guyana first brought the case to the ICJ in 2018, asking the court to formally affirm the legal validity of the 1899 border award. The territorial dispute lay dormant for more than 60 years after the award was issued, until Venezuela revived its claim to Essequibo in 1962. Following the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which established formal mechanisms for peaceful negotiation, years of bilateral talks failed to produce a resolution, leading the United Nations Secretary-General to refer the dispute to the ICJ. The ICJ previously ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, clearing the way for the current merits hearings, where both sides are presenting their full legal arguments.

During opening arguments that began Monday, Guyana maintained that the 1899 award permanently and definitively settled the border, and that it remains legally binding and entitled to international recognition. But Mbengue countered that the 1899 award is a discredited artifact of British imperialism, and that the ICJ’s earlier jurisdiction ruling did not validate Guyana’s underlying claim. He argued that the ICJ panel failed to account for Venezuela’s core legal position in its initial jurisdiction ruling, and that any lasting resolution must center on the terms of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, not the 1899 award.

“The real issue is the pursuit of a mutually satisfactory agreement to the controversy generated by the 1899 award, a solution that consign this artifact of British imperialism to the past where it belongs and to chart a way forward — this is the only proper meaning of the Geneva agreement,” Mbengue told the court, noting that Guyana has failed to offer any alternative interpretation of the pact that aligns with the parties’ original goals. He urged the ICJ to examine every provision of the Geneva Agreement, rather than limiting its review to Guyana’s narrow claims. “The court should not be constrained by the allegations that Guyana made,” Mbengue argued. “In particular, it must carefully ascertain whether Guyana’s request remains within the bounds of what the parties to the Geneva agreement sought to resolve. Guyana’s claims cannot exist within the framework established by the Geneva agreement, nor can the court decide on those matters as framed by Guyana.”

The first round of oral arguments is scheduled to run through three-hour sessions over multiple days, wrapping up next Monday.