Integrity Commission v Kikivarakis (as official liquidator TCI Bank Ltd (in liquidation)) (Turks and Caicos Islands)

The statutory power under section 20 of the Integrity Commission Ordinance to summon witnesses and require documents must be read in its legislative and constitutional context. It is confined to a formal inquiry under section 46 and cannot be used as a free-standing means of obtaining confidential financial information from third parties during an informal investigation. A formal inquiry must have an objective evidential basis, such as reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing. A valid summons overrides statutory confidentiality obligations, but an invalid summons does not.

The Integrity Commission appealed from decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Islands, which had quashed summonses issued to the official liquidator of TCI Bank Ltd. The summonses required production of confidential banking records concerning members of the House of Assembly and their dependants. They had been issued under section 20 of the Integrity Commission Ordinance, outside a formal inquiry under section 46. The central issue was whether section 20 authorised such a free-standing summons during an informal investigation, or whether the power was confined to a formal inquiry.

1. Appeal dismissed. The declaration was amended by agreement to delete the words requiring the consent of the person in public life. The Board otherwise upheld the conclusion that the summonses were ultra vires.
2. A formal inquiry under section 46 of the Integrity Commission Ordinance must have an objective basis, expressed as reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing or a good reason for the investigation. The threshold is not equivalent to a prima facie case and may be supported by hearsay or anonymous information.
3. Section 20 was interpreted in context. It appears in Part III, concerning Commission procedure, rather than Part IV, concerning investigations. The surrounding provisions regulate attendance at a Commission sitting, contempt, perjury, legal representation, expenses, privilege against self-incrimination and cross-examination. Those features point to a formal, semi-judicial inquiry and are inconsistent with a secret, free-standing summons against a third party where no wrongdoing is alleged.
4. The Ordinance provides progressive powers for obtaining information and documents, including requests to declarants, investigative powers under section 18 and production orders under section 30 where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence. The absence of a general summons power during informal investigation does not impair the Commission’s constitutional functions.
5. A valid section 20 summons overrides the duty of confidentiality imposed by section 3(1) of the Confidential Relationships Ordinance. Since the summonses were invalid, the liquidator remained bound by that duty.
6. The Board, in the judgment of Dame Eleanor King with whom Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens agreed, advised that the appeal be dismissed.

1. Privy Council: Appeal dismissed. The declaration was amended by deleting the words requiring the consent of the person in public life.
2. Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Islands: Appeal dismissed; the summonses were held ultra vires.
3. Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands: The Chief Justice quashed the summonses and granted judicial review relief.