Greene light

Errol Greene, former Ministry of Health permanent secretary and current acting CEO of the University Hospital of the West Indies. A Supreme Court judge on Wednesday granted the Government and Errol Greene, former Ministry of Health permanent secretary and current acting CEO of the University Hospital of the West Indies, leave to apply for judicial review to seek several orders in the continuing fight to block the Integrity Commission (IC) from accessing the employment files of several government workers in a corruption probe into the Jamaica-Cuba Eye Care Programme. The battle over disclosure of those details was sparked in 2025 when the commission — which is probing allegations of irregularities in the ministry’s award and execution of contracts under the programme to determine whether the circumstances surrounding the award and execution of certain contracts breached any applicable policies and laws or gave rise to an act of corruption — issued a notice to the ministry demanding a wide range of information and documents relating to the programme. The notice sought the personnel/employment files of eight current and former ministry employees as well as “other files” which it did not specify. The health ministry, according to court records, “partially complied with the notice”; however, the legal dispute stemmed from the IC’s demand for the personnel/employment files. Greene, concerned about his role under the Data Protection Act and the constitutionally protected privacy rights of public officers, did not hand over the files; instead, he sought advice from the attorney general (AG). The IC has maintained that it requires the files in order to obtain writing samples, banking details, and contact information to further the investigation. Greene and the attorney general (the chief legal adviser to the Government), however, have characterised the demand for the personnel files “as a fishing expedition” that exceeds the respondents’ statutory powers and purpose. In filing court proceedings to halt the production of these files, Greene and the AG, who have contended that the IC’s powers are not absolute, sought and obtained an ex parte injunction from the Supreme Court and further in March this year filed the application for leave to apply for judicial review, seeking leave and an extension of time. The IC, which had served Greene with a summons warning that he could face criminal prosecution for non-compliance for its part, sought a declaration of contempt, discharge of the injunction, and refusal of leave from the courts. Wednesday, Supreme Court Judge Justice Sonya Wint-Blair, who heard the application for judicial review over several dates this year, in ruling, said Greene and the attorney general “are entitled to challenge the legality of the IC’s decision to issue the notice and witness summons by way of judicial review”. “I am satisfied that they have shown arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success in relation to the demand for the complete personnel files and ‘other files’, and to how those files relate to the personal information protections they rely on. The applicants have met the threshold for leave by raising arguable grounds for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success,” she said in granting their application for an extension of time. “Having now granted leave, I expressly direct that the existing injunction remains in place pending determination of the judicial review claim or further order,” Wint-Blair said. Said the jurist: “There is a serious issue to be tried concerning the personnel files. If production is compelled before that issue is resolved, a later success may not undo the disclosure, and damages may not adequately remedy the resulting harm to confidentiality. The applicants have an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success. The balance of convenience is in the applicants’ favour, delaying access may impede the investigation”. “I have assessed the balance in light of those competing risks and the practical effect of the proposed order and weighed it against the public interest…I conclude that the lesser risk of injustice lies in maintaining the injunction until the judicial review claim is determined or a further order is made,” she said, adding that the injunction binds both sides. Justice Wint-Blair said Greene and the attorney general “must preserve and securely store all files related to the notice and summons and produce them forthwith if the court so orders”. “I find that the second respondent will suffer no irreparable harm if a stay is granted. The stay applies to the notice and summons and to all judicial proceedings commenced or undertaken pursuant to them. It also applies to the respondents’ investigation as described herein; however, it does not prevent the continuation of the investigation into other aspects of the programme that do not concern issues of privacy and information protection. Without this restraint, proceedings that constitute a judicial process may continue in this case, thereby rendering judicial review nugatory,” she said further. Justice Wint-Blair also noted that granting a stay of the proceedings means that the IC, “shall not make any further demand in relation to the files by issuing separate notices or summonses addressed to any other personnel in respect of these files, as those notices and summonses would not be before this court for review”. She said the IC is also restrained from conducting any enquiry into, or otherwise dealing with the aspect of the investigation related to these files until the court proceedings are determined. In several orders, Wint-Blair prohibited the IC from “acting on or continuing to act on” its August 2025 notice addressed to Greene who was at the time permanent secretary of the Ministry of Health requiring “production of a copy of the employment/personnel files and other files, if any, of the eight identified past or current public officers in the care and control of the ministry”. She also granted an order of certiorari to quash the notice and an order of certiorari to quash the summons to witness dated February 25, 2026, which had been issued to Greene in relation to the same disclosure regarding the employees. Justice Wint-Blair, in the meantime, refused the IC’s application for a declaration that Greene breached an April 2026 injunction by giving a media interview in May 2026 and further refused its application to hold Greene in contempt of that injunction. Justice Wint-Blair stressed that the interim injunction granted in April 2026 prohibiting both sides from, among other things, taking any further steps that would disturb the status quo while the application is pending or until further order, “remains in force and is binding on both parties”. She said Greene and the attorney general “must preserve and securely retain all files relating to the notice and summons and produce them forthwith if so ordered by the court”.