标签： Jamaica

OCHO RIOS, St Ann — At a regular sitting of the St Ann Municipal Corporation held Thursday, People’s National Party Councillor Ian Bell, who represents the Beecher Town Division, delivered a pointed rebuke of St Ann’s top health official, calling out Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tamika Henry’s prolonged absence from the body’s monthly general council sessions.

Bell stressed that local municipal representatives have been denied critical access to the region’s top public health leader for a full 24 months, noting that Henry has only sent formal apologies for her non-attendance month after month without resuming in-person or virtual participation. “We deserve direct answers from the chief medical officer about the ongoing state of public health in St Ann, and we have a right to know why she has refused to join these meetings for two full years,” Bell told fellow council members. “This broken pattern of non-attendance is simply unacceptable and cannot continue.”

The criticism comes at an odd moment: just recently, Dr. Henry and her twin sister Dr. Tamara Henry-Gilpin, who serves as Chief Medical Officer for neighboring St Mary, were profiled by local St Ann publication *North Coast Times* for their decades of combined service in the medical sector and their reputed commitment to advancing local health care across both parishes.

This public celebration of Henry’s work only deepened Bell’s skepticism around her commitment to municipal transparency, he said. “If she is truly as dedicated to her role as the profile claims, she should honor the requirement to attend these local board of health meetings and engage directly with elected representatives,” Bell argued. He added that the current workaround of having Chief Public Health Officer Delroy Scott stand in to deliver presentations on Henry’s behalf is functionally ineffective.

“Multiple times, council members have posed pressing public health questions to Mr. Scott, but he does not hold the authority or the inside information to answer them — and we cannot fault him for that gap,” Bell explained. “I’ve watched council meetings from other parishes across Jamaica, and every single other region has their chief medical officer present to report directly to representatives. St Ann is the only outlier here.”

Scott, who was in attendance at Thursday’s meeting, acknowledged the criticism and addressed Bell’s concerns directly. He confirmed that scheduling conflicts are the primary barrier that has kept Henry from attending sessions, and committed to relaying the council’s frustrations to the CMO after the meeting.

A growing procedural and political dispute has erupted in Jamaica’s parliament over a decision by the parliamentary Ethics Committee to summon sitting MP Dennis Gordon for a second round of questioning, a move that the opposition’s senior leadership argues lacks legal and procedural foundation.

Phillip Paulwell, Leader of Opposition Business in the Lower House, outlined his objections in an interview with the Jamaica Observer on Friday, stressing that the committee has no inherent authority to reopen a matter that was already formally reviewed, approved and signed off by the full House of Representatives. Under existing parliamentary rules, Paulwell argued, the Ethics Committee can only revisit a closed case if the full Parliament issues a formal referral back to the panel for further review. Without this required step, he said, the committee’s current action is legally invalid.

The controversy traces back to Gordon’s earlier application for a standard exemption that allows MPs to conduct business with government entities. The Ethics Committee reviewed Gordon’s request during a closed-door sitting, approved the application, and submitted a formal recommendation to the full House of Representatives, which subsequently gave final approval to the exemption. The matter was considered settled until recently, when fellow MP Juliet Cuthbert-Flynn raised concerns that information Gordon provided during the original closed-door review conflicts with details that have since become public. This prompted the Ethics Committee to vote to summon Gordon back for additional questioning.

Beyond challenging the committee’s jurisdiction in this case, Paulwell warned that the unprompted move carries the clear appearance of unfair political targeting, a problem that risks eroding public confidence in parliamentary institutions. “It does give that appearance, and that’s why I have cautioned against it because as parliamentarians we have to make sure that the processes are evenly and impartially dealt with, and not due to witch-hunt or any other such motivation,” Paulwell told the outlet.

Paulwell also highlighted that the current handling of the case breaks with decades of established parliamentary practice. For his 30 years in the legislature, he explained, all exemption applications have been handled entirely in camera to protect the privacy of MPs’ personal business dealings. The public airing of details from Gordon’s case, he said, represents an inappropriate departure from long-standing norms that ensures fairness for all members.

The opposition leader added that this precedent-setting move could have lasting negative consequences for parliamentary governance. Inconsistent application of core procedural rules, he argued, weakens public trust in the legislature as an impartial institution. To resolve the impasse, Paulwell confirmed he will demand formal clarification from the government when the House of Representatives holds its next sitting next Tuesday. He said he expects Leader of Government Business Floyd Green to provide a clear explanation for the committee’s actions to move the process forward. As of Friday, Gordon has not issued any public response to the Ethics Committee’s summons.

A historic swearing-in ceremony held at King’s House in St Andrew on Thursday brought eight members of Jamaica’s judiciary into new, higher-ranking positions, with Governor General Sir Patrick Allen officiating the formal event.

The batch of appointments includes two acting Judges of Appeal: Justices Lorna Shelly-Williams and Carolyn Tie-Powell will hold their new posts from April 20, 2025 through to July 31, 2026. Two additional full appointments went to Tracey-Ann Johnson and Andrea Martin Swaby, who took office as permanent puisne judges starting April 13.

Completing the lineup of elevated roles, Master Kamar Henry-Anderson and Chester Crooks have been appointed acting puisne judges, while Christine McNeil and Yvette Wentworth-Miller will step into acting positions as Masters in Chambers. All four of these acting appointments will run from April 13 to July 31, 2026. During the ceremony, each of the eight appointees formally completed the required Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath to officially take up their new duties.

In his keynote remarks to the newly appointed judicial officers, Governor General Sir Patrick Allen emphasized that the appointments are a direct recognition of the group’s decades of accumulated legal expertise, as well as a clear signal of the Jamaican public and government’s deep trust in their personal integrity and commitment to public service.

He further noted that this round of judicial appointments strengthens Jamaica’s long-standing commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the fair, unbiased administration of justice across all levels of the court system. “These principles form the bedrock upon which we encourage public confidence in our courts,” Sir Patrick told attendees.

“As you assume your duties, we depend on you to carry your share of the responsibilities in our society. Similarly, we depend on you to uphold this delicate equilibrium, resolute in your independence and unwavering in your commitment to justice, thereby preserving the dignity and integrity of Jamaica’s judiciary,” he added in his closing charge to the new appointees.

LONDON – In a landmark move to crack down on harmful online content and protect vulnerable groups, the UK government unveiled sweeping new measures Friday that would hold tech industry executives personally criminally liable for failing to remove non-consensually shared intimate imagery from their platforms. If the amendment to the pending Crime and Policing Bill passes, senior leaders at non-compliant tech firms could face prison sentences, individual fines, or both.

The proposal, put forward by the current Labour government which maintains a working majority in the House of Commons, marks a significant escalation of the UK’s push to strengthen online safety regulations. Government officials framed the new rules as a direct response to growing public outcry over image-based abuse, amplified by a high-profile controversy earlier this year.

Back in February, ministers first announced that the upcoming legislation would require digital platforms to remove non-consensual intimate content within a 48-hour window. That initial announcement followed a global backlash after Elon Musk’s X platform, which integrated the AI chatbot Grok, was found capable of generating sexually explicit deepfake imagery of real individuals. The incident highlighted gaps in existing regulation and spurred policymakers to introduce harsher penalties for non-compliance.

Under the updated framework laid out Friday, companies that fail to meet the 48-hour removal deadline already face severe penalties: fines of up to 10% of their annual global turnover, or a full block on operating within the UK. The new amendment goes a step further, attaching personal criminal consequences to senior leadership who allow harmful content to remain on their platforms.

“Too many women have had their lives shattered by having their intimate images shared online without consent,” Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said in an official government statement announcing the amendment.

In addition to the new rules for non-consensual intimate imagery, the government tabled additional amendments Friday that would codify two new criminal offenses: possession and publication of incestuous pornography, and content depicting adults posing as children. Anyone convicted of these offenses would face a maximum prison sentence of five years.

All the proposed changes are part of the government’s broader national strategy to cut violence against women and girls by half within a decade, and shield children from the pervasive threat of online sexual abuse. “We will stamp out misogynistic and harmful content online and create a safer world,” said Alex Davies-Jones, Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls.

The amendment is currently attached to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is progressing through parliamentary debate as of the government’s announcement.