‘Terrorism Bill report an insult to Senators’

During debate of the report in the Upper House yesterday, Seetahal said she was not satisfied with the report. She said Government may have good reasons for certain provisions in the Bill, but is yet to explain them, and they certainly did not state them in the report. She slammed the report for not addressing some of the concerns raised during the substantive debate on the Bill.

Seetahal said "it is an insult" to some of the Senators who made contributions during the debate of the Bill, pointing out that the concerns raised were "not addressed."

She wondered what was the purpose of her contributions "if it (the Bill) goes to a committee and comes back with the same thing."

"Why is the committee treating what we say with scant courtesy?"

Seetahal agreed that the report could not deal with all concerns raised, but "at least with some of the salient points." She noted that one of the concerns was the 48-hour detention of a terrorist and the provision to extend the detention to an additional 14 days. She said the current convention was that persons held for more than 36 hours can get a writ of habeas corpus, and therefore the provision was inconsistent with current practice. Current legislation also provides for the extradition of persons who are arrested in Trinidad and Tobago for crimes in other countries, but Seetahal said the Bill provided for the trial of a person in this country for a terrorist act committed elsewhere.

She said while the nature of terrorism was fast replacing wars in the world, Government must say why the legislation should be accepted into law as it is.

Seetahal was supported in her dissatisfaction with the Bill by the Opposition UNC, which attempted to stop the debate from taking place. At the start of the sitting, objections were raised by Opposition Senator Wade Mark, who argued that copies of the report circulated to Senators were unsigned and the debate could, therefore, not proceed. Mark pointed to certain sections of the Standing Orders to support his point, but Government members insisted there were no requirements in the Standing Orders to prevent the debate. UNC Senator Robin Montano, who was a member of the committee, and who submitted a minority report, also agreed that the report did not address concerns raised but completely ignored them.

He said the UNC supported the legislation in principle, but they had concerns about the infringement of persons’ rights, which the committee had not dealt with.

Montano identified one of the issues as that which makes a person guilty of a terrorist act, if he provides expertise or a skill to the terrorist. He said such persons lending assistance can be attorneys, and it offended the Constitution. Montano recommended that the report of the majority be treated as a first report, therefore saving the Bill and allow the committee to continue its work in the next session of Parliament, or rejecting the majority report. Montano insisted that the UNC did not wish to pass legislation that was dictatorial and gave the police too much powers, especially since some of them were not trusted. He predicted that the legislation would be struck down by the courts, saying that can be avoided because "we can fix it." He also pointed to the disregard of advice given by attorney Michael Quamina, which the committee sought.

In his contribution, Mark said the Bill was a joke, especially since similar law in the UK took two years of deliberations.

He criticised the committee for hosting only one public consultation, saying they had shortchanged the Parliament.

He suggested that because the Bill was so important and dealt with fundamental rights of citizens, the committee should not have rushed in its deliberations.