LEADER of Opposition Business in the Lower House Phillip Paulwell has declared that Parliament’s Ethics Committee has “no jurisdiction” to revisit the Dennis Gordon matter without a formal referral from the Parliament, and has warned that the move risks appearing as unfair targeting.

Paulwell has also argued that a recall of Gordon by the committee would breach established parliamentary procedure.

The comments come amid growing controversy over the Ethics Committee’s decision to summon Member of Parliament Dennis Gordon to reappear before it, after concerns were raised by a member, Juliet Cuthbert-Flynn, that information he previously provided during a closed-door meeting may not align with details that later emerged in the public domain.

The committee had initially examined and approved Gordon’s application for exemption to do business with government entities during a private sitting. The committee’s recommendation was later given the green light by the House of Representatives.

However, the panel has since moved to recall Gordon for further questioning, prompting debate over whether it has the authority to revisit a matter already settled by Parliament.

Speaking with the Jamaica Observer on Friday, Paulwell warned that the way the process is unfolding risks undermining fairness and could be perceived as targeting the member.

“It does give that appearance, and that’s why I have cautioned against it because as parliamentarians we have to make sure that the processes are evenly and impartially dealt with, and not due to witch-hunt or any other such motivation,” Paulwell said.

He argued that once the Ethics Committee completed its review and the House acted on its recommendation, the matter should be considered closed unless formally referred back to the committee.

“The Ethics Committee would have received an application from Mr Gordon in relation to the exemption requirement for Members of Parliament who are engaged in business with the Government, and that application was considered and approved, and a recommendation was made to the House of Representatives for it to be approved — and it was so made that it was approved and signed off on. Now, it’s my view that once that has been dealt with, then unless there is a referral from the House of Representatives back to the Ethics Committee, then the Ethics Committee would have no jurisdiction to reopen the matter,” argued Paulwell.

He maintained that the committee cannot independently revisit its own decisions without direction from Parliament.

Beyond the question of authority, Paulwell also criticised the manner in which the issue is now being handled, pointing to what he described as a departure from established parliamentary practice.

“For the past 30 years that I’m in Parliament, applications dealing with exemptions are dealt with in-camera and to protect against information on people’s private business activities being exposed in the way that this one is being done now,” he explained.

He said the approach taken in the current matter is inconsistent with how such issues have traditionally been managed.

“But in any event, when it gets back to the Parliament, or the details are published at that time, it is never the case where in a committee meeting, details are dealt with in the way that they have been recently, so I think it’s just inappropriate, ,” Paulwell said.

In a statement released on Friday, Paulwell warned that reopening a matter already decided by the House without a clear procedural basis could have wider implications for parliamentary governance.

He added that inconsistency in applying parliamentary rules could weaken public trust in the institution.

Paulwell said he will be seeking further clarification from the Government on the committee’s actions when the House of Representatives meets next Tuesday.

“I have called for some clarity, and I’m hoping that the Leader of Government Business [Floyd Green] will provide the clarity and we can take it from there,” said Paulwell.

CUTHBERT-FLYNN…information he previously provided during a closed-door meeting may not align with details that later emerged in the public domain. (Observer file)

GORDON…is yet to respond publicly to reports he is being summoned to reappear before Parliament’s Ethics Committee (Naphtali Junior)