Williams Defends Select Committee Report, Says Parliament Must Protect Its Constitutional Independence

Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Select Committee of Parliament Hon. Jameka Williams, has defended the Committee's takeaway on the Crest Report regarding the Integrity Commission against criticism raised in a correspondence from Her Excellency Governor Dileeni Daniel Selvaratnam, arguing that the issue before Parliament concerns not only the Committee's findings but also the constitutional independence of the Legislature.

Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Select Committee of Parliament Hon. Jameka Williams

Responding in the Parliament on Friday, July 31, to a letter from the Governor dated 29 July 2026 and read by the Speaker on 30 July, Williams said the Select Committee welcomed scrutiny of its work but maintained that disagreement with its conclusions was not enough to invalidate its findings.

"If there is a genuine factual error supported by primary evidence, we will consider it," Williams told the House. "However, disagreement with the Committee's conclusions does not make the report inaccurate, misleading or procedurally improper."

Williams stressed that the report was not her personal work but the collective product of the Select Committee, adopted after hearing witnesses, reviewing documentary evidence and engaging stakeholders throughout its inquiry.

"The conclusions reached are not mine alone; they are the collective judgment of the Committee based on the evidence before it," she said.

Crest Review

Addressing one of the central concerns raised in the Governor's correspondence, Williams rejected the suggestion that publication of the Crest Review automatically meant the Integrity Commission had formally accepted all of its findings and recommendations.

She said the Committee's report does not dispute that the review was published or considered. Rather, it reflects the evidence presented during the inquiry, which she said did not establish that the Commission, acting collectively, formally adopted every recommendation contained in the review.

"If evidence exists to the contrary, Parliament is the proper place for that evidence to be produced and examined," Williams said.

Defence of Parliamentary Independence

Williams used much of her response to underscore what she described as the constitutional separation between the Executive and the Legislature.

She noted that the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution establishes three independent branches of government, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, each with distinct constitutional responsibilities.

"The Executive cannot supervise Parliament, just as Parliament cannot direct the Judiciary," she said. "Each institution must respect the constitutional boundaries established for it."

Williams argued that while the Governor exercises constitutional responsibilities within the Executive, there is no constitutional authority for the Governor to oversee parliamentary proceedings or the work of Select Committees, which are established by and accountable solely to the House of Assembly.

She further stated that there is no constitutional or procedural requirement for the Speaker or a parliamentary committee to notify the Governor of committee proceedings, reports or debates simply because the Office of the Governor is referenced.

According to Williams, suggesting otherwise risks creating the perception that Parliament must first seek approval from the Executive before carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

She maintained that parliamentary committees must remain free to examine evidence, question witnesses, deliberate independently and report to the House without interference or the appearance of executive oversight.

Committee Acted Within Its Mandate

Williams said the Select Committee remained firmly within the mandate granted to it by the House of Assembly.

She noted that the Committee did not legislate, direct the Executive or interfere with the work of the Integrity Commission, but instead carried out its parliamentary oversight function by reviewing evidence, reaching conclusions and making recommendations for Parliament's consideration.

She emphasized that Parliament retains the authority to accept, amend, reject or refer those recommendations as it sees fit.

Willing to Correct Proven Errors

While defending the Committee's conclusions, Williams said it remained open to correcting any factual inaccuracies that could be demonstrated through primary evidence.

"If there is a specific passage in the report that is alleged to be factually incorrect, then let that passage be identified," she said. "We will correct any demonstrated factual error. But what we will not do is withdraw carefully reasoned conclusions simply because they are disputed."

Closing her remarks, Williams reaffirmed her confidence in the report and in the work of the Select Committee she chairs.

She described the report as "the product of the mandate given by this Honourable House, the evidence received during the inquiry, and the collective judgment of the Select Committee," adding that it represents "a legitimate exercise of parliamentary oversight."

"It is not my report; it is the Committee's report," Williams said. "And I stand firmly behind it."