FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS

When in Government, the UNC behaved as if the sun rose and set with the draft police bills. The self-same legislation has become a dark cloud that threatens to smother Trinidad and Tobago’s democracy when the party is sitting on the Opposition benches. This was the thrust of the Prime Minister’s argument Tuesday when he inaugurated the debate on the controversial proposed police laws in the House of Representatives. The UNC, the PM contended, was not supporting the measures before the legislature because it was of supple backbone. To prove his point, Patrick Manning cited the UNC’s about face on the CCJ legislation and the Crowne Plaza agreement as other examples of the legislative and political somersaults Basdeo Panday and his team were adept at making.

The Prime Minister had the UNC pegged. It was, indeed, opposing legislation it helped draft when in Government. Its 360 degree turn left the Prime Minister in the position to assert that because the UNC had once backed the bills, the populace had “nothing to fear.” The bills would “not allow a Government to abuse its power,” Manning swore. The UNC’s flip-flop also left it without much of a leg to stand on during the three-day congressional fight over the bills and this is why, with the exception of a couple of its MPs, the Opposition could not object to the measures on legitimate grounds. Thus, by and large, the UNC failed to tackle the defective and dangerous clauses present in the three bills, provisions which can severely undermine basic constitutional rights and/or which have the potential to expose the police service to governmental interference. The result is that the average citizen is left with the false impression that the package of legislation was fit for passage. However, all three bills are flawed and contrary to the Prime Minister’s reassurances, there is much to fear from them.

The bill which establishes the Police Management Authority is not as innocuous as the PM would have us believe. Though he correctly affirms that the PMA will be chosen independently, what he does not say is that the PMA cannot appoint either the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Police without the Prime Minister’s stamp of approval. This provision is also present in the Republican Constitution, but in the proposed PMA law, not only are the powers of the Commissioner considerably increased to include some of those enjoyed by the Police Service Commission, there are none of the usual constitutional checks and balances against abuse of power. He or she can promote, transfer, discipline or fire any of the thousands of police officers in his charge at will. In the exercise of his powers, the Commissioner is only obliged to take into account the recommendations of the Promotion Advisory Board when he makes a promotion. This Board incidentally, is comprised of the “Prime Minister’s” Deputy Commissioner of Police, a consultant appointed by the “Prime Minister’s” Commissioner and a person from the Ministry of National Security.

The Police Management Authority on the other hand is obliged to take into account the Commissioner’s recommendations when it makes an appointment or a promotion. Tell me then who is basically running the police service? The Commissioner. Who picks the Commissioner? The Prime Minister, because the PMA  cannot select one without his blessing. Ergo, who’s running the police? The Prime Minister. Is Patrick Manning asking us to trust him with the police service because he is born again? He’s the same man who tried to move Marlene Coudray, who moved the police bills from the Joint Select Committee after promising parliament he would allow its work to be finished, who is trying to move into the Red House, and who doesn’t know how to move his non-performing wife. The Police Service Bill 2004 also contains some frightening clauses.

Section 60, for example, makes it an offence for a person called upon to assist a police officer who is, while in the execution of his duty, assaulted or resisted or in danger of being assaulted or resisted, not to assist without reasonable cause. On summary conviction — no less — the person is liable to a fine of five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for one year. Can you imagine? If a policeman cannot handle himself in a dangerous situation, the untrained citizen is expected to help him. If he doesn’t have a good reason, the citizen can go to jail. This Police Service Bill also places on the citizen the responsibility to police the police. Clause 61 (1) makes it an offence for a person to knowingly harbour or entertain or, either directly or indirectly, sell or give any intoxicating liquor to a police officer who is on duty; or to knowingly permit a police officer to remain in his house, except in case of extreme urgency, when on duty. The penalty: one year in prison. How is one to know when a policeman is on duty? What if he says he is not working? Even though the words “knowingly” and “reasonable cause” are inserted in clauses 60 and 61 to protect the citizen to some degree, the citizen can still be charged for innocently liming with a policeman on duty and will have to go through the expense of defending himself in court.

Worse though, if the owner or occupier of premises licensed under the Liquor Licences Act or a person employed in connection with the business of any such premises is convicted under clause 61, he may not only go to jail, he is liable to have his licence forfeited or suspended by that licensing committee. The third bill, the Police Complaints Authority Bill 2004, will also create a constitutional minefield because the proposed law will establish a tribunal with the powers of a Commission of Inquiry and this tribunal will be comprised of political appointees. These will report to the Minister of National Security. Investigations can be started on the initiative of the Authority, but the Minister can also demand that the Authority conduct an investigation. In conducting this investigation, the bill permits the PCA  amazingly wide-ranging powers. The PCA can, among other things, require ANY person to furnish a statement in writing, enumerating all real or personal property belonging to or possessed by that person in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere.

It can also demand that the manager of any financial institution furnish any information or certified copies, of the accounts or the statement of accounts of the person being investigated. A person who fails or refuses to disclose any information or to produce any document under this section commits an offence and is liable on SUMMARY conviction to a fine of $50,000 and to five years jail. These clauses do not simply violate the right to enjoyment of property and expose the public to political harassment; they are rich coming from a Government that has not yet declared a cent under the new Integrity Act. The point thus, is not whether the UNC did a legislative flip-flop, as Manning charged. We all know it did. The point is that neither the UNC nor the PNM should have laid these dangerous bills in the first, second, third or fourth place, or how many times they were brought to Parliament.