标签： Jamaica

A routine ethics hearing at Jamaica’s Parliament descended into fractious internal debate on Tuesday, as the Ethics Committee found itself in uncharted procedural waters, unable to resolve a fundamental dispute over its authority to recall sitting Member of Parliament Dennis Gordon of St Andrew East Central. What had been billed as a session where the media would hear testimony from Gordon instead devolved into a tense, wide-ranging debate over whether the committee has the legal standing to revisit a matter already finalized by the full House of Representatives.

At the core of the standoff is the committee’s earlier recommendation on Gordon’s exemption application, which was already approved by Parliament. Newly surfaced public information has cast doubt on the accuracy of disclosures Gordon submitted as part of that original application, prompting some committee members to push for a second invitation for Gordon to appear to answer questions.

Committee chair Marlene Malahoo Forte defended the effort to reconvene Gordon, framing the request as a matter of core procedural fairness. She argued that Gordon deserves a formal opportunity to respond to the new allegations before the committee draws any final conclusions. But after Gordon rejected the invitation to attend, the debate quickly shifted to the unresolved question of whether the committee retains any jurisdiction over the case once the House has acted on its original recommendation.

Opposition MP Anthony Hylton, an attorney representing St Andrew Western, was among the most prominent voices calling for the jurisdictional question to be settled before any further action. Hylton emphasized that the committee cannot overstep the boundaries laid out in parliamentary rules, warning that the body’s authority is not unlimited. He pointedly raised the legal doctrine of functus officio, which holds that an official body has exhausted its mandate once it has completed its assigned task on a matter. “The fundamental issue for any committee has first to rest on its jurisdiction to address the matter,” Hylton said. “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’.”

While acknowledging the unprecedented complexity of the situation, Malahoo Forte pushed back against the argument that the committee must drop the matter. She stressed that the body cannot simply ignore new concerns about the integrity of the information that formed the basis of its original recommendation to the House. She also expressed deep discomfort with Gordon’s outright refusal to appear, arguing that the committee has an ethical obligation to examine whether a sitting MP’s rejection of its invitation is appropriate under parliamentary rules.

“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,” Malahoo Forte said. “So, again, it requires sensitivity, it requires fairness, it requires some reflection.” She added that the tone of Gordon’s rejection letter sat poorly with her, noting that the inquiry is not an attempt at political retaliation: “This is not about witch-hunting anyone, it’s not about pointing fingers at anyone, but it just does not sit well with me.”

Gordon’s rejection of the invitation left little room for compromise. In his formal note to the committee, he wrote: “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.”

Committee member Natalie Neita Garvey, MP for St Catherine North Central, echoed calls for caution, highlighting the need to balance the committee’s mandate to uphold good governance with protections for the individual rights of the MP under scrutiny. Garvey argued that the committee should have clarified its procedural standing before extending a summons to Gordon, and that the body must respect Gordon’s decision to assert his rights under existing rules. “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,” Garvey said.

As the debate wrapped up without agreement, Malahoo Forte acknowledged that the impasse exposes deeper procedural challenges the committee will likely face in future ethics inquiries. With no immediate path to resolution, members voted unanimously to refer the entire question to the full House of Representatives for formal guidance before moving forward.

The jurisdictional dispute has already been backed by formal legal advice from the Parliament’s own senior legislative team. In an April 21, 2026 memorandum, senior legislative counsel Tiffany Stewart laid out that under Jamaica’s Standing Orders, select committees like the Ethics Committee have strictly limited authority, confined only to matters formally referred to them by the full House.

Stewart noted that the committee’s original mandate was limited exclusively to reviewing and reporting on Gordon’s exemption motion, a process that concluded when the motion was approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate earlier this year. Once the House adopted the committee’s final report, Stewart wrote, the committee exhausted its authority on the matter, falling under the functus officio doctrine. Without a new formal referral from the full House, the committee has no standing to reopen the case, even when new information emerges.

Citing longstanding parliamentary principles laid out in the authoritative guide Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, Stewart’s legal opinion stressed that any effort to reconsider the matter, regardless of new evidence, requires a fresh substantive motion from the House of Representatives. “Committees are creatures of the House and possess no independent authority to amend or revisit decisions already sanctioned by Parliament,” the memorandum clarified. Stewart added that the proper procedural path, when new concerns arise after a report is approved, is for the House to either issue a new referral sending the matter back to the committee, or to rescind its original decision before any further review can proceed.

KINGSTON, Jamaica — In a pointed address during Tuesday’s 2026/27 Sectoral Debate in Jamaica’s House of Representatives, opposition energy spokesperson Phillip Paulwell, a former energy minister under the previous People’s National Party (PNP) administration, has publicly challenged the ruling government to set aside empty public relations and force United Oil and Gas to uphold the binding terms of its Jamaican oil exploration licence.

During Tuesday’s 2026/27 Sectoral Debate in Jamaica’s House of Representatives, National Security and Peace Minister Dr. Horace Chang, who also serves as deputy prime minister, delivered a charged address holding civil society organizations directly responsible for the recent fatal shootings of two retired police officers from his constituency. The minister, who has a long history of tense clashes with advocacy groups – most notably Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), which he has previously accused of accepting “blood money” – doubled down on his scathing criticism, arguing that unfounded public claims of unjustified police killings created a culture of retaliation that led to the officers’ deaths.

Dr. Chang detailed the circumstances of one killing to the chamber, identifying the victim as Mr. Brown, an elderly retired officer described as a quiet, unassuming man. Brown was shot dead by gunmen while driving his aged Toyota Corolla, after slowing down to navigate a pothole. The minister emphasized that just one week before the attack, public claims had circulated that police had killed an unarmed civilian without justification, creating a hostile narrative that criminals exploited to target vulnerable retired officers. “These were retired, so they [gunmen] found the soft targets,” Dr. Chang told lawmakers.

While maintaining that Jamaica remains a robust democracy rooted in the rule of law, and asserting he welcomes legitimate criticism of Jamaica’s security forces, Dr. Chang pushed back against repeated calls from civil society for independent investigations into police-related fatalities. He noted that multiple domestic oversight bodies already monitor, evaluate and regulate the conduct of police officers and public servants, dismissing repeated demands for extra independent reviews as “foolishness.”

Citing official data from the July 2024 report from Jamaica’s Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom), Dr. Chang backed his argument with empirical evidence. Between 2011 and 2023, Indecom investigated 1,936 fatal shootings involving security forces, and only 66 of those cases proceeded to criminal prosecution – a prosecution rate of just 3.4%. Since the start of 2024, 11 police officers have been charged in connection with fatal shootings; of those, 8 were off-duty at the time of the incident, with only 3 facing charges for events that occurred while on active duty.

In a sharp rebuke of JFJ and other advocacy groups that push for increased police accountability measures including mandatory body cameras, Dr. Chang challenged activists to experience the intensity of armed policing first-hand: “Sometimes some of these people who are calling for the police to always have cameras, they should go out there and go to Twickenham Park [training school] and let the JCF fire some rounds and let them hear what the M16 bullets really sound like.”

Dr. Chang remained unapologetic for his stance, stressing that law enforcement officers should not be placed in unnecessary danger because of unfounded “verandah talk” – a colloquial term for unsubstantiated public gossip. He argued that civil society groups and public opinion should not interfere with the work of established oversight bodies, noting that when false narratives portray police as routinely killing civilians without cause, criminals become emboldened to retaliate against easy targets like retired officers. “If criminals come to believe that police officers are killing persons wantonly they will retaliate and attack other officers whom they perceive as soft targets. These groups must adhere to the evidence reflected in the data. It is wrong to do otherwise. It is dangerous, and it is immoral,” Dr. Chang insisted.

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Tensions between Jamaica’s top security leadership and local civil society organizations have flared once again, as National Security Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Horace Chang reiterated that no independent advocacy group has the authority to dictate operational decisions to the country’s national police force.

Chang delivered the sharp rebuke Tuesday afternoon during his opening address for the 2026/27 Sectoral Debate held at Gordon House, Jamaica’s parliamentary building. The comment comes as the latest chapter of a long-running, combative dispute between Chang and civil society groups — most prominently Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) — over a key policing reform demand: mandatory body-worn camera use for officers during planned operations.

The push for expanded body camera deployment gained traction last year, when JFJ stepped up its calls amid a significant spike in fatal police shootings across the island. That period coincided with an unexpected nationwide drop in homicide rates, a trend the government has highlighted as a sign of progress in its anti-crime strategy.

Addressing lawmakers, Chang pushed back against civil society pressure while confirming that the government has followed through on its commitment to acquire body cameras for the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), with all purchased units already delivered to the service. But he emphasized that operational deployment decisions rest exclusively with the country’s top police leadership.

“Body-worn cameras are part of modern police equipment, and the only person who has the authority and the professional capacity to instruct where they should go is the commissioner of police and his team,” Chang told the legislative chamber. “No civil society organisation can tell us where to put them. That was what was damaging the police for years. Everybody [acts like] cowboy policing and ‘donmanship’ and tell police where to go police.”

Despite pushing back on external demands for deployment timelines and scope, Chang acknowledged that body cameras serve a critical purpose in strengthening police transparency and accountability. He added that the government is continuing its investment in the technology, with another 1,000 units already on order to expand access across the force.

Chang also outlined his government’s broader surveillance infrastructure investment plans during the address. The Jamaica Eye Programme, the country’s national public closed-circuit television network, is on track to expand its footprint, with a target of 3,000 active cameras operational by the 2028 budget year, he confirmed.

Closing his remarks on police governance, Chang reaffirmed the division of responsibilities between political leadership and law enforcement command. “My job is oversight and providing equipment,” he said. “[The] society holds them accountable, they do policing, and we have an excellent commissioner of police.”

Reporting by Lynford Simpson

A high-stakes murder trial involving six current and former members of Jamaica’s national police force has hit critical evidentiary hurdles, after a retired investigating detective offered conflicting and uncertain testimony during his remote court appearance on Monday.

The former detective constable, who resigned from the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) and now resides and works overseas, testified via pre-approved video link after the court granted his special measures request, which cited work commitments that prevent an in-person appearance.

The six officers on trial at Kingston’s Home Circuit Court stand accused of involvement in the January 2013 fatal shooting of three men — Matthew Lee, Mark Allen, and Ucliffe Dyer — on Acadia Drive in St Andrew. One of the accused, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, faces an additional charge of submitting a false statement to the Independent Commission of Investigations, Jamaica’s independent police oversight body. The other five accused are Sergeant Simroy Mott, and constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose, and Richard Lynch.

During Monday’s proceedings, the seven-member jury watched as prosecutors unsealed a series of evidence envelopes the former detective submitted to forensics following the 2013 shooting. The witness confirmed that the handwriting on the first envelope matched his own, and confirmed he labelled the packet as part of the official investigation. However, he told the court he observed clear signs the envelope had been opened and resealed after it reached the government forensic laboratory. When the prosecution pulled a spent bullet casing from the envelope and displayed it to the witness, he could not confirm it was the same casing he recovered from the crime scene, packaged, and sent for testing.

A second envelope labelled by the witness was then unsealed; after examining its contents, the witness stated the fragment inside resembled a piece of lead. Prosecutors next moved to present a series of DVDs the former detective testified he created with his own crime scene photos and evidence documentation. When prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke requested the DVD be loaded into the court’s computer to display its contents to the witness, the defense team immediately raised a series of objections.

Hugh Wildman, the lead defense attorney representing four of the six accused officers, argued that the witness is no longer a serving JCF member, is not a recognized forensic or digital evidence expert, and therefore is not qualified to provide formal identification or testimony related to the DVD’s contents. The full defense team, which also includes attorneys John Jacobs and Althea Grant-Coppin, further raised disputes over what type of software should be used to access and display the image files stored on the disk.

Later in the proceedings, the defense raised another objection when the witness referenced his 2013 written investigative statement to answer questions about his actions on the day of the shooting. Defense attorneys argued the witness should testify from his own memory, not from his contemporaneous notes. In response, the former detective pushed back, noting that the shooting occurred more than a decade prior, and that written statements are specifically created to preserve investigative memory. He told the court, “I cannot remember what I did 13 years ago. I can only reference my statement which I wrote. I made notes at the scene. We preserve memory by writing statements and that is why I refer to my statement and not memory. This statement refreshes my memory on what I wrote but not what I did on that particular day.”

The former detective also confirmed that he collected multiple pieces of evidence from the shooting scene, including spent bullet casings, blood reference samples, a peak cap, a lighter, and a fragment that appeared to be part of a belt. All collected evidence was transported first to his local office before being sent to the government forensic lab for analysis, he said.

Following Monday’s contentious proceedings, the trial is scheduled to resume on Tuesday.