Statement1 April, 2026

Statement from the Jamaica College Board of Management on TVJ Report

For Immediate Release — April 1, 2026

The Board of Jamaica College has reviewed the report aired by TVJ in its Prime Time Newscast of March 30, 2026, and wishes to address the matter directly. The report raises serious concerns regarding journalistic responsibility, accuracy, and adherence to legal and ethical standards.

This was a serious and regrettable incident, which the school is treating with the utmost seriousness.

It is not our usual policy to publicly air the results of statements of witnesses while a matter is under investigation, but in this case, we feel that an exception is warranted given that so much inaccurate detail has already been published and republished on social media which has given an incorrect and misleading impression of the events.

Our understanding of the facts, as gleaned through contemporaneous accounts, including the handwritten and signed statement of the young man who was presented on TVJ (called "Boy 3"), and multiple eyewitness statements, differ materially from the narrative presented in the TVJ report.

Those statements indicate the following:

•Boy 1 was walking towards the lunch venue and a $2,000 note fell from his pocket.

•Boy 2 noticed this and called out to Boy 1 to alert him to the fact that his money had fallen to the ground.

•Boy 3, who was walking in the opposite direction having already bought his lunch, thought that Boy 2 was talking to him and so he took up the $2,000 note.

•Boy 1 demanded the money as by now he had realized that it was his, but Boy 3 refused to give it back to him. A verbal altercation and "pushing and pulling" ensued as Boy 1 tried to take back the money and Boy 3 resisted.

•Boy 3 realised that the money wasn't his and apologised for his error, writing in his statement that he "said it was a misunderstanding and I thought it was mine. I handed it over". Boy 3 later verbally admitted that he checked his top pocket and realized that his $2,000 note was still there.

•Boy 3 wrote that after he handed over the money Boy 1 punched him in the face "while moving away" and he, Boy 3, threw his food at Boy 1 "in anger", whereafter Boy 1 punched him in the face again and "broke his nose".

•The eyewitness accounts stated that Boy 1 pushed Boy 3 after he got back the money and matters escalated after Boy 3 cursed Boy 1 using expletives and threw his lunch into Boy 1's face. It was in retaliation for this that Boy 1 punched Boy 3 in the face and injured his nose.

The eyewitnesses all stated that the fight was just between Boy 1 and Boy 3 and that other boys intervened to part them.

Boy 3 stated that at one point he felt someone behind pull him. He also said that someone parted the fight. At no time in his written contemporaneous statement did Boy 3 suggest that he was attacked and beaten up by bullies or that he had a fight with anyone other than Boy 1.

As a result of an insinuation by TVJ it is worth pointing out that both Boy 1 and Boy 3 are both fourth formers, and Boy 1 is actually the elder of the two.

The same witnesses alerted the Dean of Discipline and also took Boy 3 to the Nurse where he was immediately attended to and his mother was called.

The school followed its well established internal protocol and immediately interviewed the parties and witnesses. The Dean of Discipline met with the mother of Boy 3 on the scene and school officials have kept in touch with her ever since, almost daily, checking on the welfare of Boy 3.

Importantly, the contemporaneous statements do not support the characterization of a coordinated group assault, nor do they substantiate broader claims of systemic bullying. These accounts, including statements from multiple students present, are internally consistent and materially at variance with the version broadcast by TVJ.

The Board is particularly concerned that:

•TVJ made no request of Jamaica College for an official comment on the incident prior to broadcast. Had they done so they could easily have been furnished with the above accounts which had been gathered one week before their broadcast.

•The only indication the school had that a report was coming, was a passing statement made by a TVJ cameraman who had just finished interviewing the Principal as a part of the Champs celebrations. The cameraman stated that a report was going to be aired about an incident at the school, and he asked the Principal if he was aware of it. The Principal stated that he was made aware of all incidents and that there is a robust internal procedure that handles and investigates all incidents.

•The Principal then called the TVJ director of News and asked what this incident was about as no one had called him to get JC's comment. TVJ said that "they should call you". That was in the morning of March 30, 2026 and no call was made to the Principal or any other school official by TVJ. The school was therefore shocked that TVJ proceeded in its 7:00pm news with the materially inaccurate, defamatory and damaging report which it has since repeated and has been republished by several news and social media outlets.

•To make matters worse, TVJ used the Principal's generic response to a general, unspecific question posed without detail, and cut and paste it into the news report to make it seem to have been a response to an enquiry about the specific incident which was the subject matter of the news report. That response was spontaneous and generic, not a considered statement on the matter under investigation.

•It is also curious that this incident occurred a week before the broadcast. TVJ had time to prepare a detailed report with the mother and boy, yet elected to air the report as a part of its mandatory report on the Champs celebrations for the school.

This approach raises legitimate concerns regarding contextual accuracy, editorial fairness and even motive.

While the Board respects the role of the media, reporting on matters of this nature must be grounded in verified facts, balanced context, and careful consideration of legal and ethical obligations. It is also to be noted that the school has no report from the mother or the boy about him being bullied as was alleged in the TVJ report.

JC also totally refutes the statement made by the mother and reported by TVJ that there are "brutal fights daily" at JC. We plan to ask them both for justification of these allegations.

The discrepancies between the verified contemporaneous records and the broadcast narrative, together with the manner and timing of the report, raise concerns that will be addressed through appropriate channels.

Jamaica College remains fully committed to the safety and well-being of all students, the fair and thorough investigation of all incidents, and the upholding of due process and justice.

The Board will continue to engage this matter responsibly and through the appropriate channels.

Lance Hylton

Chairman