Opposition tears into terror bill

In his presentation of the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2004 to the Lower House on Friday, Junior Minister in the Ministry of National Security Fitzgerald Hinds cited the September 11 attacks in the United States and the more recent terrorist attacks of Basque separatists in Madrid, Spain and FARC attacks in Colombia as testimony to the severity of the damage caused by international terrorism. He also recounted the issue where a suspected al Qaeda operative was reported to be in Trinidad. In making a case for the Bill, Hinds contended that certain international conventions to which TT was either a signatory or had ratified, mandated that Government come up with anti-terrorism legislation.

Primary among these conventions is the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1,373, which called on states “to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant conventions relating to terrorism.” However, he said that while there may be existing laws dealing with the prohibition of military training and firearm related issues, there was no law in TT to specifically deal with acts of terrorism. As such, Hinds told the House that the proposed legislation was indeed necessary.

One of the most contentious clauses of the Bill proposes that a police officer may apply ex parte for a detention order to a judge in Chambers, with only the prior written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). However, the Bill goes on to require that the judge make the detention order only if he is satisfied that the written consent of the attorney general was obtained and that there is reasonable grounds for detention. On reading this part of the Bill, Opposition members called for Hinds to give way for them to seek clarification on the particular clause, but they were ignored by the Junior Minister who went on reading his presentation. Hinds was then roundly criticised for ignoring the Opposition’s request for clarification by the fire-brand Pointe-a-Pierre Member of Parliament (MP), Gillian Lucky, during her response.

Lucky questioned the provision that allowed the attorney general, a member of the Executive, to be involved in the granting of a detention order which is a judicial function. She asserted that the Bill encroaches on fundamental rights and by refusing to entertain the Opposition’s query, had perhaps hoped that by ignoring certain discrepancies in the Bill they would not be discussed. The Pointe-a-Pierre MP wanted to know why Government did not consider that the Bill may need a special majority to be passed, since it interfered with certain individual rights and freedoms.

Lucky elaborated by stating that the broad definition of what constitutes a “terrorist act” may be applied to strikes, civil disobedience campaigns and picketing. These sentiments were also reflected by the South African Freedom of Expression Institute, which lauded the shelving of that country’s Anti-Terrorism Bill. Lucky expressed fear that in addition to protestors, the Bill may be manipulated to target certain radio talk-show hosts who the Government may consider “divisive.”