MEMBER of Parliament for St Andrew East Central Dennis Gordon will be summoned to reappear before Parliament’s Ethics Committee after members raised concerns that the House’s earlier decision to exempt him may have been based on information provided during a closed-door meeting that now appears inconsistent with details that later emerged in the public domain.

The decision was made during the second meeting of the committee on Wednesday, where members agreed that Gordon should be recalled to clarify responses he gave during the initial sitting on February 4, which was held behind closed doors.

The concern now facing the committee is not whether to immediately reverse the House’s earlier decision, but whether the information on which that decision rested was accurate.

The issue stems from the auditor general’s report into procurement practices at the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), which found that the hospital had improperly used its tax-exempt status to facilitate imports for four private companies, resulting in estimated losses of $23.1 million. Among the entities at the centre of the controversy is JACDEN, a company in which the People’s National Party Member of Parliament (MP) is a principal.

Committee Chair Marlene Malahoo Forte made it clear on Wednesday that the panel’s renewed interest in Gordon’s appearance was triggered by what has since emerged beyond the walls of Parliament.

“So the matter that has arisen is whether the information, the answers provided by the member, was correct in light of subsequent information that is in the public domain. That is the issue, and if the committee’s recommendation to the House was also based on the responses provided by the member, then there may be a need for some clarification,” Malahoo Forte said.

Her remarks came after MP for St Andrew West Rural Juliet Cuthbert-Flynn indicated that fresh scrutiny was warranted after reviewing both the minutes of the meeting held in February and the public disclosures that followed.

Her intervention effectively reopened a matter many had assumed was settled after Gordon appeared before the committee in February and the House subsequently approved his exemption.

During the discussion, MP for St Elizabeth South Eastern Franklyn Witter questioned whether the committee could properly revisit a matter on which the House had already acted, raising concern about whether it was procedurally sound to go back after Gordon had already been exempted.

However, Malahoo Forte argued that the issue before the committee was not a legal one, but a factual one centred on whether the responses previously given still stood in light of information now in the public domain.

“I don’t know that there is any need for legal advice. If we’re saying that the minutes reflect certain responses and subsequent to that information in the public domain would be contradicting the responses, I don’t know if that is a matter that requires legal advice, it would be a matter requiring clarification from the member who is, in fact, impacted. I don’t believe that you take any decision against anyone without hearing from them, that is a basic rule of natural justice,” said Malahoo Forte.

The ethics committee is tasked under the standing orders with examining matters involving members’ conduct, including issues relating to conflicts of interest and disclosure. In Gordon’s case, the committee is now seeking to determine whether clarification is needed before deciding whether any further report should be sent back to the House.

Malahoo Forte stressed that the committee was not yet seeking to undo what the House had already done. Instead, she framed the matter as one of factual clarification and procedural fairness.

“The committee would not be taking a decision. The committee would have to, first of all, invite back the member so that we can seek some clarification, and the matter would have to be referred to the House, perhaps by way of a report… So, at this stage, it’s not really a decision to reverse the recommendation that was made, but to interrogate it in light of subsequent development. I think that is the highest we could go at this stage,” she said.

By the end of the discussion, the committee settled on a formal course of action: Gordon is to be summoned back under the standing orders of the House rather than invited informally.

Malahoo Forte noted that the procedure would require notice through the clerk of Parliament and compliance with the relevant timetable before the next sitting of the committee.

MALAHOO FORTE… I don’t believe that you take any decision against anyone without hearing from them, that is a basic rule of natural justice.

CUTHBERT-FLYNN… indicated that fresh scrutiny was warranted.

WITTER.. questioned whether the committee could properly revisit a matter on which the House had already acted.