Premier Dr. Natalio “Sowande” Wheatley begins the debate of the Service Commissions (Amendment) Bill, 2024, on Aug. 1. Lawmakers passed it the next day with amendments, but the final version is not yet public. (Photo: SCREENSHOT)

Certain prison, customs and immigration officers could soon be subject to new vetting requirements under a bill the House of Assembly passed recently in accordance with a Commission of Inquiry recommendation.

The Service Commissions (Amendment) Bill, 2024, passed on Aug. 2 with amendments after HOA members returned from discussing it in a closed-door committee session.

The final version, which now awaits the governor’s assent, has not yet been made public.

“This bill is a critical step towards fortifying the public’s confidence in those who protect and serve,” Premier Dr. Natalio “Sowande” Wheatley said while explaining the bill to the HOA on Aug. 1. “Why is vetting necessary, Madam Speaker? It ensures that every individual entrusted with law-enforcement responsibilities meets the highest standards of ethical conduct and professional competence. By meticulously assessing the backgrounds, associations and qualifications of our officers, we can prevent corruption, misconduct and abuses of power before they occur.”

Among other amendments, the draft bill Gazetted July 29 would allow for the vetting process to be outsourced to “an independent body.”

Deputy Premier Lorna Smith said she supports the bill, but she was among multiple HOA members who expressed concern about outsourcing.

“I am not necessarily in favour of the outsourcing proposal of the bill,” she said. “I too feel that the various commissions should have — or build — the capacity or the capability to vet the persons who are in the schedule to the act.”

Opposition Leader Ronnie Skelton spoke of some changes he hoped would be addressed during the closed-door committee discussions on the bill.

“It says [in the amendments] that if you don’t get clearance from the vetting process you can’t be hired — that’s what the words are saying,” Mr. Skelton said. “I am hearing from the other side, ‘Oh no, that’s not how it’s supposed to be.’ And it’s true that we go into committee stage and we probably can — we will — make the corrections in committee stages. But this is what went out to the public.”

The right to privacy

Opposition member Myron Walwyn expressed concern about potential privacy violations under the bill given that no regulations have been passed for it.

“It’s Emancipation Day, and you want to put us back to this point that you don’t even have the very respect for our privacy — don’t mind the fact that the set of regulations [have] not been passed already. But the bare fact that somebody could put this on paper is offensive to me, to our people,” Mr. Walwyn (R-D6) said.

Earlier, however, Dr. Wheatley had acknowledged the importance of maintaining the privacy of officers subject to vetting.

“We have to ensure that the vetting is not so intrusive to violate persons’ rights to privacy and their other constitutional rights, which are protected in the Virgin Islands Constitution Order 2007,” Dr. Wheatley said when explaining the objects and reasons for the bill.

Ms. Smith also called for “balance” and urged legislators to ensure that the vetting process is “not more intrusive than in other countries.” She added that most overseas territories have vetting procedures in place.

Regulations

Ms. Smith also stressed the importance of regulations, noting that “the devil is always in the details.”

Dr. Wheatley spoke similarly while explaining the objects and reasons.

“Allowing vetting is the right thing to do,” he said. “The actual regulations themselves we have to ensure are proportionate — proportionate to the risks which present themselves. But we should allow vetting to be able to take place and then ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose and that they do not violate [a] person’s constitutional rights.”