‘Bills will bring bloodshed’

Minority Leader in the Senate, Opposition Senator, Wade Mark believes that if the Police Reform Bills are passed without the support of the special majority, especially the Constitution (Amend-ment) Bill, 2003, (which seeks to abolish the Police Service Commis-sion), this will put the police service under the total control of the political directorate and will lead to “guerilla warfare and bloodshed” among the national community. He accused the PM of trying to score “cheap political points” by re-introducing the Police Reform Bills without the Joint Select Committee’s report. Speaking on behalf of the UNC, Mark said the party’s first concern is defending democracy of the people.

“We are not prepared to provide any political party with a huge amount of power that can lead to the manipulation of the police service and its ultimate  translation into a private army of the PNM,” he said. “Should a ‘private army’ of the PNM be unleashed on all opponents of the PNM, that will be the beginning of the end of democracy and the rule of law and it will usher in guerilla warfare and social revolution. Those Bills will bring violence and social revolution.” A statement from the former Attorney General under the UNC, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, explained that the UNC government at the time, had appointed a Bipartisan Team to look at possible reforms of the police service. The Bipartisan Team appointed a technical team and that technical team submitted to the government, a package of Bills for government to consider for the reform of the police service.

Maharaj said he had advised the then government that if some provisions of the Bill were made law, there was the potential of those provisions causing the police service to become a private army of a governing political party. He said he had also advised government that the Bills should be laid in Parliament as mere “drafts” and a statement made, explaining that they were mere “drafts” and the stakeholders and public had to be consulted on the said Bills. He said the then PM, in laying the Bills in Parliament, made that statement. Senator Mark said the Oppostion was concerned that with “ultimate power” in the hands of the PNM, anyone opposed to the government can be “crushed” under its feet. Mark said in order to avoid this, the Opposition is appealing to Manning to ensure there are “checks and balances” for more accountability and the protection of members of the population.

He alluded to an abuse of power on Manning’s part, using as examples, the transfer attempt of the CEO of the San Fernando City Corporation, Marlene Coudray to the Point Fortin Borough Cor-poration, as well as the summoning of Police Commissioner, Everald Snaggs to his Whitehall office to give him his letter of appointment. “That was an example of making someone a stooge of his government,” said Mark.

Ramesh: Police Bills dangerous

FORMER attorney general Ramesh Law-rence Maharaj yesterday said those persons supporting the Police Reform Bills were “supporting a dangerous matter.” In a release, Maharaj said the Bills in its present form sought to alter police power from the Commissioner of Police and the Police Service Commission to the “governing political party.” He is advising that Government conduct a public education programme to educate citizens on the Bill, rather than spend taxpayers’ money on a public relations exercise “putting pressure on Members of Parliament.” Maharaj said during his tenure as AG, the then government had appointed a bipartisan team to look at possible reforms of the Police Service.

That team appointed a technical team which submitted the proposed legislation to government. Maharaj said he advised the then UNC government that if some of the proposed provisions were made law, there was the potential of the provisions causing the Police Service to become a “private army of a governing political party.” He said he advised that when the Bills were laid in Parliament, they be laid as “drafts” and that stakeholders and the public be consulted.

Maharaj said when then prime minister Basdeo Panday laid the Bills, he indicated that they were “drafts” and there needed to be consultation. Maharaj said Govern-ment could not now attempt to pass the Bills without public education. He said the Government had also collapsed be-cause of its admission that it could not deal with crime without the help of the Opposition. He also said Govern-ment should blame itself for not being able to fight crime because “it had interfered with the major intelligence gathering machinery of the Police Service, both locally and abroad, and it had undermined the Police Service in its association with criminal gangs.”

Deosaran:

Police Reform Bills are ‘panic legislation’

Independent Senator, Director of the Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, Professor Ramesh Deosaran, has described the proposed Police Reform Bills as “panic legislation,” rather than reasoned public policy. In a statement, he said: “Public desperation over crime and the police is now so intense that the mounting pressures on the Government, Oppostion and even on the Inde-pendent Senators, may well produce ‘panic legislation’ rather than reasoned public policy.” Deosaran said as a member of the ad-hoc Joint Select Committee which had studied the three bills for many months, he wants to know if the work of the Committee is now pushed aside.

He said as a JSC member, the Committee interviewed the Police Service Commissioner and based on their findings, it was revealed that the Police Service Commission seemed confused over its role in police management and performance. Referring to the JSC, he pointed out that the Constitution (Section 66) provides for a permanent Joint Parliamen-tary Select Committee to inquire into and report to Parliament on the operations and functions of the Police Service Commission and other Service Commissions. “This is the law. Many persons now believe that the friendlier, smoother and more productive route, should have been a meeting between this Bipartisan Parliamentary Commit-tee and the Police Service Commission, before the Parliament rushes into killing the Police Service Commis-sion,” he said.

Deosaran added: “As chairman of that Bipar-tisan Parliamentary Committee, I give the assurance that this route would have been less divisive, more productive and satisfying, even to the needs of government.” He pointed out that the evidence of the Committee, would have been fairly laid out, reported for parliamentary debate and then the final verdict given. “Good governance would have reigned rather than the chaos and confusion we now face with these three bills,” he said.

Independents: Let democracy rule and the people speak!

Independent Senator, Noble Khan, felt there should be a high element of independence and separation in terms of the appointments and disciplinary factors un-der the Police Service Commission, similar to what exists within the Public Service and the Judiciary. With government trying to get the support of every sector to pass the Police Reform Bills, the Independent Senators will be getting ready to debate the issue on June 29. Khan said moving away from the Com-mission and placing it under a Police Manage-ment Authority, would allow the political arm of the government to be responsible for the ap-pointment of these officials.

“As such, they will be moving away from what has been already established and en-shrined within the Con-stitution,” he noted. Khan said he was very concerned about this, pointing out that a large portion of the management of the police service is already under political control. He felt that by having the appointments taken away from the control of the President, who is seen as “the people’s” man, will also be moving away from what is enshrined in the Constitution. Khan said while he accepts the idea of change, as is common with any developing society, he is calling for the participation of and consultation with people regarding the Police Reform Bills, since that is part of the rights within a democratic society such as TT.
In a statement, Inde-pendent Senator, Parvatee Anmolsingh-Mahabir, said while she is prepared to support any legislation for the reform of the police service, she is hesitant to support legislation which interferes with the fundamental rights and freedom of the people.

She noted that the public is concerned with the issue of safety in this country and they want a drastic reduction in crime. But to achieve this, she said, an essential criteria is to have an efficient and effective police service. “Of course, legislation alone will not be panacea to solve all the problems of crime. “This will need the co-operation of all the stake-holders of the nation,” she said. “I am open to negotiations with the government if it makes some amendments with regards to the replacement of the Police Service Commission. While the Commis-sion itself needs to be reformed to function more effectively, it is the safeguard which protects the Indepen-dence of the police service.”

Political background of Police Reform Bills —

A case against Lalla?

In an interview with Sunday Newsday last week, Opposition Senator Wade Mark gave a political history of the Police Reform Bills and recalled that it was in 1993, that PM Patrick Manning, first attempted to reform the Police Service Commission. He said at the time, the Opposition felt it was government’s attempt to destroy all Service Commissions by using the excuse of reform of the Police Service Commission. Mark described as an “assault” on the Police Service Commission, Manning’s attempt to force the then Commissioner of Police, Jules Bernard, to retire, even though he was not yet due for retirement.

He said in an effort to begin “destroying” the independent institutions under the Service Commissions, Manning used the then Attorney General, Keith Sobion, to introduce a Constitution Amendment Bill, in order to abolish the Police Service Commission in 1993-1994. However, the Bill was defeated in the Senate. “Apparently, Manning never forgot that defeat. I think his real ambition is to get rid of the Chairman of the Police Service and the Public Service Commission, Kenneth Lalla, because it was he who stood up to Manning and said he could not retire Jules Bernard just because he, Manning, said so,” he said. In 1999, convicted prisoner, Deochand Ramdhanie, escaped from custody while serving a life sentence for drug trafficking, prompting the then Prime Minister, Basdeo Panday, to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Ramdhanie’s escape.
The Commission was headed by former High Court Judge, Zainool Hosein. Opposition Leader, Manning, publicly articulated the value of what he called at the time, a “Bipartisan” approach, in tackling the urgent need for reform of the Police Service said Mark.

Panday, in his response, invited Manning on a number of consultations and formed a Bipartisan Team, in August 1999. This team was headed jointly by Panday and Manning, and they agreed they would work out measures, including any legislative action that would be required to provide solutions to problems besetting the police service. Other members of the team included, former Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, former National Security Minister, Joseph Theodore and  MP Camille Robinson-Regis. The Team agreed on the issues such as corruption within the police service and methods of investigating corruption, the system of recruitment and promotion, management and other areas concerning the administration of the police service, to be addressed.

A Technical Team was appointed by the Bipartisan Team, under the Chairmanship of former President, Sir Ellis Clarke. After a series of consultations, the Team submitted a number of Draft Bills to the Bipartisan Committee. There was a Draft Constitution Amendment Bill, a Draft Police Service Bill, A Draft Complaints Police Authority Bill and a Draft Police Service Regulations. Once they were accepted by the Technical Team, they were tabled through Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and the Minister of National Security in Parliament as a package, on Friday July 13, 2001. It went no further.
Mark said PM Panday insisted that the Bills must go out for public comment and the participation of the people, but before there was any further action on the Bills, the UNC lost office that same year, when three of its Ministers pulled out, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Ralph Maraj and Trevor Sudama.

New elections were called for October 2001 but that ended in an 18-18 draw. After much consultation between Panday and Manning and the then President, ANR Robinson, Manning was chosen as PM in December 2002. Mark recalled that when the PNM party came into office, they took the Drafts and introduced Bills, on November 8, 2002. He said the Opposition had objected to this and with insistence, Prime Minister Patrick Manning agreed that the public ought to be informed and involved. As a result, a Joint Select Committee (JSC) was established with a mandate to consider and report on the Bills, publish them for public comment and report to Parliament.   The JSC chaired by former AG, Glenda Morean, held a series of meetings and held public consultations across the country. Mark said even though the JSC invited 1,500 organisations seeking their comments, only 53 of them responded. Over 10,000 copies were printed for public circulation and two extensions were granted. On July 18th, Parliament went into recess for about two months, during which time, the JSC tried to get a meeting with the Technical Team headed by Sir Ellis Clarke, to find out how the Bills could be reshaped and to get his recommendations. However, he said this never happened.

Mark said the majority of the public was saying that the Police Reform Bills were not necessary and what was needed was the implementation and enforcement of the existing laws. He said the population had also called for overall Constitutional change according to the findings of the JSC.
Around this time, government was also taking steps to porogue Parliament. Mark explained that once this happened, all discussions during that period, would have been lost, therefore, the JSC had to save the work which it started. A report was submitted to Parliament to have the work of the JSC saved. Government agreed that the JSC’s work would be saved and a new Committee would be appointed as soon as the new session of Parliament commenced. “It is now history that this never took place. Instead, the then Attorney General, Glenda Morean, laid in the Senate, October 21, 2003, the three Police Reform Bills and November 11, they moved that the Bills be read a second time for debate,” he said. Mark felt that the reality was that government failed to establish a new Committee which they had agreed upon when the new session of Parliament began and consequently, was not able to divulge its findings.