Bid for consistency in the law responsible for lowering some JCCA fines—Fitz-Henley

KINGSTON, Jamaica—State Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister Senator Abka Fitz-Henley says it was the Attorney General’s Chambers’ “appropriate recommendation” for uniformity and consistency in the law that is responsible for a reduction in some fines for breaches of certain provisions under the Jamaica Consumer and Competition Authority (JCCA) Act, 2026.

“The fines have been reduced to bring them in line with similar legislation which prescribes sanctions which are available to commissions and tribunals to impose,” Fitz-Henley said.

He was speaking in the Senate on Friday during his contribution to the debate on the JCCA Bill, which was eventually passed with three amendments.

Once established, the Consumer and Competition Authority will merge the functions of the Consumer Affairs Commission (CAC) and the Fair Trading Commission (FTC).

Opposition Senator Ramon Small Ferguson told Parliament on October 2 that “most concerning” is that the maximum fine for failing to comply with a Tribunal order falls from $2 million to $500,000, a reduction of 75 per cent.

“The senator might be aware that both uniformity and consistency are aspirational underpinnings of sound legislative processes across the world. In other words, lawmakers and policymakers generally aim for consistency in laws passed. So the truth of the matter is, the fine for failure to comply with an order of the tribunal was adjusted downwards to a maximum of $500,000 in order to make the law across the board more consistent and bring the sanction in line with prescribed fines under similar existing laws where there is defiance of an order made by commissioners or duly appointed stewards of tribunals,” Fitz-Henley told Parliament on Friday.

He noted that the Commission of Enquiry Act, as amended in 2013, is one such law where section 11(M) provides for a person who acts in contempt of an order of the commission to be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

“That defiance of an order of a tribunal or a panel of commissioners, the Attorney General’s Department rightly pointed out, is similar to the section of the JCCA Act which speaks to failure to comply with an order of the tribunal. Hence, revision was recommended to achieve uniformity and consistency, which, as I pointed out, legislative processes the world over seek to obtain. The same principle applies to the other revisions raised by Senator Small Ferguson,” Fitz-Henley commented.

Fitz-Henley noted that the initial bill, which in 2013 had proposed to amend the Commission of Enquiry Act, had included a suggestion to impose a fine of $3 million for failure to comply with an order of the commission.

However, he recalled that by the time the bill was debated, including in the Senate, where it was piloted by then Justice Minister Mark Golding, and then passed into law, that proposed fine had been adjusted downwards to a maximum of $500,000, a decrease of over 80 per cent from what was initially contained in the bill.

Fitz-Henley said it is not an unreasonable argument that the fine for failure to comply with the order of a tribunal or commission should be increased across the board when all similar legislation is contemplated.

“But in the context of this bill, would a one-two-or four-million-dollar fine be enforceable when we contemplate small businesses, including sole traders or individuals found in breach? Just which figure strikes the right balance between a prospective deterrent and a fair sanction that is enforceable? These are equally valid considerations in the legislative process,” the state minister reasoned.

He also cautioned the Opposition against embarking upon a piecemeal analysis of the bill and offering unresearched perspectives.

“A fragmented analysis of this bill will not reflect an accurate picture. I am of the view that a wholesome look at the JCCA bill might lead a reasonable mind to conclude that it offers a sound platform for the establishment of a strong but fair mechanism to protect our consumers and ensure that fairness in enforcement is meted out to those who are accused,” Fitz-Henley concluded.