PARLIAMENT’S Ethics Committee will seek clarification from the House on the status of the Integrity Commission’s Leadership Code of Conduct after concerns were raised that the committee may be unable to properly investigate complaints against Members of Parliament (MPs) if they have not signed the document.

The issue arose during Wednesday’s meeting, where committee chair Marlene Malahoo Forte raised concern about whether the panel can effectively examine complaints of misconduct if a MP has not signed the code of conduct.

While signing the code of conduct is not mandatory, members indicated that the lack of clarity surrounding who has signed it could affect the committee’s ability to investigate alleged breaches of the code.

Malahoo Forte pointed out that the challenge is not simply whether the code exists, but whether it can be meaningfully applied in circumstances where not all members may be formally bound by it.

“This is a matter that is not without controversy because the Integrity Commission is tasked with establishing codes of conduct and we know that there are reports of the code of conduct not being signed by all members of the House. We also should know that the code essentially reflects the principles of public life which was adopted in this jurisdiction. But how do we receive, investigate and report on complaints of departure from the code of conduct if the code of conduct is not signed?” Malahoo Forte questioned.

Government MP Krystel Lee, who represents St Ann North Western, said the issue may require Parliament to re-engage members on the code and figure out why some may not have signed it.

“Clearly there are concerns and I mean we would have had a new set of parliamentarians coming in and I think new members would have to be brought up to speed in terms of what the code entails, [and] explanations would have to be given to them and a full breakdown, and we could also possibly look at an entire re-engagement with all parliamentarians on the code and then perhaps have the concerns discussed for both new parliamentarians coming in that would need to sign the code, and for those who previously were in Parliament that did not sign, and then we could ventilate from that matter because obviously there are some issues surrounding why older members, meaning members who are not serving as first-term MPs would have not signed,” she expressed.

Malahoo Forte responded, noting that the implications for the committee were significant, as one of its duties under the Standing Orders is to investigate and report on complaints of departure by members from the political code of conduct.

“So what is clear is that if the code is not signed by members then the committee would not be able to discharge its duty of receiving, investigating and reporting on any complaints of departure by members from the code,” she said.

That prompted MP for St Andrew West Rural Juliet Cuthbert Flynn to question whether the uncertainty could limit the committee’s ability to bring members before it on future matters involving possible ethical breaches.

Malahoo Forte responded that the issue would likely have to be formally referred back to the House, as the committee could not ignore a problem that went to the heart of its mandate.

“I think the committee would have to report to the House and enquire what is the status of the political code of conduct and what are the reasons for the non-signature by members and a discussion be had around that. But I think what currently obtains would make it difficult for the committee to discharge its duties unless the matter of the political code of conduct is interrogated,” she said.

The discussion also revealed that some members themselves were unsure about the document’s circulation or status in the current Parliament.

“I cannot remember if I’ve ever received such a document to sign,” Cuthbert Flynn admitted.

That disclosure added another layer to the issue, suggesting the concern may not only be about refusal or reluctance to sign, but also whether the process surrounding the code has been clearly communicated and consistently administered.

Malahoo Forte noted that while material relating to the code appears to exist in the public domain, the committee still needs clarity on its formal standing within Parliament and how it is meant to operate in practice.