The Integrity Commission has revealed that former Deputy Chairman of the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) Dennis Meadows, enabled the issuance of a firearm licence to his relative, which amounts to nepotism, a conflict of interest and corruption.

In a lengthy report on its investigation into allegations of corruption involving the issuing of gun incenses, at the FLA, the director of investigation said that he has referred the matter to the director of corruption prosecutions.

A determination is to be made by the director of corruption prosecutions, in relation to whether the actions of Mr. Meadows, former director of the 2016 FLA board, in his approval of a firearm user licence for his family member, amounted to an explicit act of nepotism which constitutes the common law offence of misconduct in public office, a breach of public trust and a breach of section 14 of the corruption prevention act.

The commissions report which was laid in parliament on Wednesday indicated that the actions of Mr. Meadows, in approving the firearm user application of his family member, an applicant who was convicted of the offence of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine in the United States of America, amounts to nepotism, a conflict of interest and corruption.

The commission said the actions of Mr. Meadows in trying to assist a relative in this regard, was an explicit act of nepotism which constitutes the common law offence of misconduct in public office and a breach of public trust.

The director of investigation said he is satisfied, for the purpose of section 2 of the Integrity Commission Act that, if the facts as found were to be proved on admissible evidence to the requisite criminal standard, an appropriate tribunal, would find that Mr. Meadows had committed the offence of misconduct in public office.

Accordingly, the director of investigation is satisfied that the jurisdictional requirements of the Integrity Commission Act are satisfied.

The commission said as a public servant in the execution of his public function, Mr. Meadows advanced a private interest which resulted in a benefit to his family member.

In this respect, his actions contravened the principles of integrity and good governance.

The director of investigation concluded that there is no written record of a declaration of a conflict of interest made by Mr. Meadows as it regards his family members firearm user licence application.

There is also no written record of Mr. Meadows recusing himself from any deliberations regarding the application of a firearm user licence by his family member.

The commission said that, by his action in approving a family members firearm user licence application, and his failure to recuse himself from any process involving the referenced application, Mr Meadows contravened the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act