Opposition: Bill will protect kidnappers — not victims

OPPOSITION UNC members who described the Kidnapping Bill as “disastrous” and filled with loopholes to protect kidnappers rather than victims of kidnapping, were yesterday sternly warned not to speak of the Caroni issue when debate began on the Bill in the House of Representatives.

The Bill was presented for debate by Attorney General Glenda Morean, instead of National Security Minister Howard Chin Lee. Morean in outlining the purpose of the Bill clause by clause, said while the Bill imposed on persons  enshrined constitutional rights, it was necessary in the interest of kidnapped victims and to impose order in society. In light of the Opposition’s stated “non support” of the Bill, which requires a special majority to become law, Morean called for all reasonable persons who were about the interest of people and maintaining law and order, to support it.

Opposition’s Chief Whip, Ganga Singh, in his short contribution reiterated the UNC’s stance. Telling Morean she did not have a “grasp of the issue”, Singh said he and his colleagues would withhold support until there was a detailed and documented plan for the restructuring of Caroni (1975) Ltd. He was immediately warned by the Speaker Barry Sinanan, to stick to the Bill. Sinanan sternly warned members that they were not to bring up the Caroni matter unless it related to the Bill.

Singh said he was merely explaining the UNC’s position. He insisted the party would only support the legislation after a comprehensive Caroni plan was put forward and after a proper Kidnapping Bill was presented. MP for Pointe-a-Pierre Gillian Lucky in her contribution, was severely critical of the Bill. She felt an explanation was owed as to why Chin Lee did not present the Bill, especially since he was responsible for National Security and had been urging citizens to be “calm” in the face of increasing crime and kidnappings. Lucky, a former State prosecutor, described the Bill as “disastrous and could never be justifiable”. She said Prime Minister Patrick Manning had accused the UNC of being in some way behind some of the kidnappings, describing the situation as part of a “political agenda” and felt he could fool the population every time his government was ineffective.

Lucky said it was “sheer nonsense for you to pretend you’re protecting citizens when you are only convoluting the offence”. She said because the Bill didn’t separate the charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment there would be stumbling blocks and hiccups, which could result in police not knowing what charges to lay which would frustrate victims and see kidnappers walking because of loopholes. Lucky accused government of not “really”consulting with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law Association. She also took issue with Clause Six of the Bill which proposes 25 years jail for those negotiating or assisting in negotiations to obtain ransom for the release of a kidnap victim. Lucky said government didn’t want to understand the implications of the clause, since relatives of victims get involved in the negotiation process. She advised government to get off the propaganda and deal with the “meat” of the issue rather than fool the public.

During Morean’s presentation, UNC MP for Siparia, Kamla Persad-Bissessar asked for clarification  on how the law would deal with family members getting involved. The AG promised an answer but later said it would be given during the Committee stage of the debate. Among the measures proposed in the Bill are 25 years and no bail for kidnappers; 15 years jail for those making demands by menace; 15 years jail for receiving, possession or disposing of money/property delivered as ransom and five years jail for disclosing information to kidnappers relating to bank accounts and other personal information of a kidnap victim.