PARLIAMENT’S Ethics Committee found itself navigating “uncharted territory” on Tuesday as members squabbled over its authority to recall Member of Parliament for St Andrew East Central Dennis Gordon.

The meeting, at which members of the media expected to hear from Gordon, instead became a wide-ranging and, at times, tense discussion over whether the committee could lawfully revisit a matter already considered by the House of Representatives.

At the heart of the issue is the committee’s earlier recommendation regarding Gordon’s exemption application, which was approved by Parliament.

The committee had sought to invite Gordon back after information that recently entered the public domain led to “questions about the accuracy of his earlier disclosures”, according to some members of the committee.

Chair of the committee Marlene Malahoo Forte argued that the request was rooted in procedural fairness, noting that members believed Gordon should be given an opportunity to respond before any conclusions were drawn.

However, his failure to appear shifted the focus to whether the committee retains jurisdiction once its recommendation has been acted upon by the House.

Opposition member representing St Andrew Western, attorney-at-law Anthony Hylton was among those who argued that the issue of the committee’s jurisdiction must be settled first, warning that the committee could not proceed without clarity on its authority.

“The fundamental issue for any committee has first to rest on its jurisdiction to address the matter… The member has responded to an invitation or request or summons, and he has placed squarely on the agenda the matter of jurisdiction. Is the matter functus officio [having served its purpose] or does the committee get to have a second chance at questioning?” Hylton asked.

He cautioned that the committee must avoid acting beyond its mandate, pointing to the limits set out in parliamentary rules.

“If a member asserts his right, then I believe we have to pay due regard to that because our committees are not all-powerful; they are specific, they are limited to the mandates that are given to them, and we can’t do things ‘because it’s nice’. It would be appropriate — if that is how the member chooses to exercise his right. The issue that we have to now address, the hurdle that we have to overcome, is the jurisdictional issue,” he added.

Malahoo Forte, while acknowledging the complexity of the issue, maintained that the committee could not ignore concerns about the integrity of information provided to it, particularly when that information informed its recommendation to the House.

She also expressed unease at what she said was Gordon’s refusal to appear, stressing that the committee must consider whether such a position was appropriate.

“The ethical issue is not so much about what is happening in accounts, but is in relation to the truthfulness of answers provided to the committee which then grounded the recommendation of the committee to the House. So, again, it requires sensitivity, it requires fairness, it requires some reflection,” argued Malahoo Forte.

She added that the committee would also have to consider whether it is appropriate and ethical for a member to refuse to appear before it to provide clarification, particularly given that rules exist to protect individuals giving evidence in the House.

“That response, which was read from the member, it does not sit well with me as chair of this committee or as a member of the House. This is not about witch-hunting anyone, it’s not about pointing fingers at anyone, but it just does not sit well with me,” she said, pointing to the tone of correspondence from Gordon, in which he declined the invitation.

“Good day, be advised that I will not attend any such sitting. This is overreaching the committee’s mandate. It has no jurisdiction or authority to summon me without an express referral from the full Parliament,” Gordon’s note read.

Committee member Natalie Neita Garvey, who is Member of Parliament for St Catherine North Central, also brought into focus broader concerns about fairness.

She argued that, while the committee must ensure good governance, it must also be mindful of individual rights.

“There could have been, from this committee, a clear request as to how we should proceed prior to summoning the member back here in an effort to make sure that we are protecting him as well as this House and this committee. Having done his due diligence, it would seem, he indicated that it is within his right not to appear and therefore has indicated what is to be the route — if there should be any — to get him back to this place,” said Neita Garvey.

As the debate unfolded Malahoo Forte acknowledged that the situation reflects deeper challenges the committee may face going forward. With no immediate resolution, members agreed that the matter should be reported to the House of Representatives for guidance before going forward.

The question of the committee’s authority is also being shaped by formal legal advice emerging from within Parliament.

In a memorandum dated April 21, 2026, senior legislative counsel for the Houses of Parliament Tiffany Stewart outlined that under Jamaica’s Standing Orders, a select committee’s role is strictly limited to matters formally referred to it by the House.

The advice pointed out that the ethics committee’s original mandate was confined to reviewing and reporting on the exemption motion concerning Gordon, which was subsequently approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate earlier this year.

According to the memorandum, once that report was adopted, the committee effectively exhausted its authority on the matter, becoming what parliamentary procedure describes as functus officio, meaning it has fulfilled its purpose and cannot revisit the issue without further direction.

Drawing on established parliamentary principles, including those outlined in Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, the legal opinion stressed that any attempt to reconsider or reopen the matter, particularly in light of new information, would require a fresh motion from the House of Representatives.

The memorandum further made clear that committees are “creatures of the House” and possess no independent authority to amend or revisit decisions already sanctioned by Parliament.

Stewart explained that if new evidence emerges or concerns arise after a report has been approved, the proper procedure would be for the House to pass a new substantive motion either to recommit the matter to the committee or, in some cases, to rescind its earlier decision before any further review can take place.

MALAHOO FORTE… the committee would also have to consider whether it is appropriate and ethical for a member to refuse to appear before it to provide clarification