Move on, Mr Manning

LAW abiding citizens will now come to their own conclusions about the nature of the country’s politics in light of the Opposition’s obvious intention not to support the Police Reform Bills. As far as we are concerned, this entire episode amounts to a truly tragic chapter in our nation’s history, one in which the people’s interest is being cynically sacrificed on the altar of partisan politics. The consequence of the non-passage of the Bills should be understood by all; the effort to clean up and enhance the effectiveness of the Police Service, an urgent need based on long and bitter experience of inept management and inadequate performance, will now be stymied, perhaps permanently.

The Bills had behind them a popular consensus since they were the studied product of a bi-partisan committee under the UNC government and had been subjected to widespread consultation. The legislation, in fact, had been drafted by a Technical Team headed by Sir Ellis Clarke, the country’s leading constitutional expert. And, most critically of all, the measures to energise the Police Service were proposed in response to public concerns over a dangerously rising crime wave. Because of the vital nature of the Bills, we expect that a majority of responsible citizens has been following the debate which is being broadcast live over television and radio. And they would be assessing the contributions of both sides, particularly the reasons now being offered by  the UNC for opposing the measures. Yesterday, Mr Panday, following on the variety of reasons he has already given for condemning the legislation of his own government, came up with a list of amendments which, not surprisingly in our view, introduced an element of old mas into the debate.

To begin with, Mr Panday wants the President to be elected by popular ballot, thus turning the selection of the country’s Head of State into a free-for-all contest. Candidates, however they may be nominated, will then, we suppose, have the opportunity to hold public meetings across the country, extolling their personal virtues and promoting themselves for the post of President. This is Mr Panday’s recommendation for solving the problem he has with Mr Richards, his plan for ensuring the appointment of a non-political President. Additionally, the Opposition Leader wants to divest the President’s decisions of their constitutional immunity, so that he can be brought to court via motions for judicial review. Citizens will draw their own conclusions but, in our view, the Opposition, in this debate, has exposed not only their abject bankruptcy but an unwholesome disregard for the interest of the country and the safety of its population.

In fact, we are amazed by some of the objections Opposition members have coughed up against the Bills, contradicting in several respects the view expressed by their Leader, when he was PM, that the Police Service was in urgent need of reform. It should now be painfully clear to the Government that they cannot rely on the Opposition to put country before partisan interest even in a crisis and, under these circumstances, they must move on with the people’s business, in particular measures to deal with the crime situation. Within the power they now have, the Government must move to improve the management of the Police Service, upgrade the quality of its manpower, expand and modernise its technology and forensic capability and provide it with adequate mobility. They must not be deterred by the setback on the Bills.