Over the past 10 days in the House of Assembly, the government fast-tracked two bills designed to boost law enforcers’ authority, drawing criticism from opposition members irked by Premier Natalio “Sowande” Wheatley’s decision to expedite each bill’s three readings in one sitting.
The proposed amendments to the Police Act, 2019 and the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act, 2014, came in response to recommendations the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force included last February in a scathing report on the Virgin Islands, Mr. Wheatley told the House of Assembly.
“Alongside several other nations, this comprehensive assessment has revealed both commendable achievements … and significant deficiencies that we must urgently rectify to protect the reputation of the [VI] and strengthen our financial system,” Mr. Wheatley said on Jan. 7 while introducing the Police Act amendment. “It is paramount that our competent authorities are equipped with the requisite powers and investigative techniques to respond effectively to mutual legal assistance requests and combat money-laundering activities.”
Objections
Opposition members, however, took issue with Mr. Wheatley’s plan to expedite the bills.
The premier first drew the opposition’s ire on Jan. 7 when, immediately after first introducing the Police Act amendment, he motioned to suspend the HOA’s usual rules to have it read a second and third time in the same sitting.
Opposition Member Myron Walwyn quickly objected.
“I rise as a point of privilege to echo my very serious concerns with this proposed Police Act amendment going through the first, second and third stages in one sitting,” said Mr. Walwyn (R-D6). “On perusal of the bill, there are some very serious incursions on the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country.”
In the ensuing squabble, which included Opposition Member Mitch Turnbull (R-D2) voicing support for Mr. Walwyn and Deputy Premier Julian Fraser (R-D3) trying to keep the peace, Speaker Corine George-Massicote allowed a vote on the premier’s motion to expedite the bill, which subsequently passed, seven votes to six.
Less merriment
In his subsequent introduction of the bill, the premier stood by his actions, noting that the draft Police Act amendment was Gazetted last month. That bill and the cybercrime amendment were initially introduced on Dec. 19 and Gazetted on Dec. 24, but they had to be introduced again this month because a new HOA session began since then.
“I believe that had to be somewhere around three weeks ago, Madam Speaker, and the public would have had an opportunity to look at the bill,” Mr. Wheatley said. “And each representative would have had the opportunity to sensitise their constituents to the bill.”
He added that members “could’ve found a little time between the merriment and carolling and whatever else it was. We’ve had several working days since this bill was [Gazetted].”
To argue that police need additional powers, Mr. Wheatley then proceeded to list recent violent crimes in the territory.
“I will remind the public and the members of the House of a young girl named Trinity down in West End [who] lost her life in a hail of gunfire,” the premier said. “She could have been my daughter. In fact, we all should behave as though that was our daughter. That was somebody’s daughter, that was somebody’s sister, that was somebody’s niece.”
To alleviate concerns about increasing law enforcers’ authority, the premier said he knows from personal experience that people need to be protected from police abuse as well.
“I have been a victim of the abuse of the police, Madam Speaker,” Mr. Wheatley said. “Madam Speaker, I’ve had a gun pointed at my head. Madam Speaker, I’ve been jailed wrongfully. Madam Speaker, one time there was a circle of police officers around me pushing on me around in a circle. Madam Speaker, I know what it means for the police to abuse their authority.”
Calling in backup
Mr. Fraser spoke next, supporting Mr. Wheatley’s arguments.
“There’s no question that the premier has just made some excellent points: Valid points that will touch the heart of a lion,” the deputy premier said. “I’m not claiming to be any lion here, Madam Speaker.”
But after praising the premier’s words, Mr. Fraser offered his own criticisms of the legislation in the same breath.
“In the definitions, Madam Speaker, it says ‘serious offence.’ ‘Serious offence’ means an offence for which the penalty includes imprisonment for a term of more than one year,” Mr. Fraser said. “Seriously, Madam Speaker? One year penalty is considered a serious offence? Madam Speaker, it doesn’t. You walking down the street and you crack a guy a clout, that’s a year. You call that a serious offence?”
Once the floor was opened to debate, Mr. Walwyn rose to ask why the premier had been talking about violent crime if the bill was being amended in response to CFATF criticisms focused largely on the territory’s financial sector.
“So it raises questions as to what, really, the concern is,” Mr. Walwyn said. “Because the premier went into areas of homicide and different things — all of a local nature.”
In addition to criticising Mr. Wheatley’s political tactics, Mr. Walwyn said that more power granted to the police must be balanced.
“You shouldn’t only just be concerned with catching people who may have done something wrong, who need to be caught,” Mr. Walwyn said. “You have to also be concerned about innocent persons who could be affected if the appropriate checks and balances are not in place.”
During the rest of the debate, government and opposition members aired various perspectives on the bill, but most agreed that the draft needed to be tweaked. Then they entered a closed-door committee session to further discuss the bill for about seven hours before returning and passing it. The bill, which itself was amended during the committee stage, now awaits consent from the governor.
Cybercrime
Directly after the Police Act amendment passed, the premier moved to expedite the cybercrime amendment.
Like two days earlier, Mr. Walwyn quickly vocalised his concerns about fast-tracking the bill.
“Madame Speaker,” he interrupted. “I rise [on] a point of privilege to raise my concerns with this ‘one-two-three’ approach on bills that have significant implications on the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of the Virgin Islands.”
But the speaker allowed the premier to proceed, and his motion passed with no audible dissenting votes.
As with the earlier amendment, the premier said the proposed cybercrime amendment was based on findings in the CFATF evaluation that highlighted deficiencies in existing legislation.
“The [Cybercrime Act] … establishes essential provisions safeguarding computer materials from unauthorised access, modification and interference while addressing the broader challenges posed by cybercrime,” Mr. Wheatley said. “However, there are numerous gaps within this act, which has caused severe limitations on the investigatory powers of law enforcement, which in turn has undermined several predicate offence matters that were before the court.”
Collaboration
Rising to second the premier, Mr. Fraser said he hoped the government and the opposition could continue to work together on the bill.
“We have just spent the better part of two days working on the bill for the [Police Act], and it was much longer than this one,” he said. “All members, Madam Speaker, have worked in harmony to make whatever amendments were necessary, and I think that we came out satisfied. … I see no reason that this bill should be any different.”
Despite his initial comments, however, the deputy premier again voiced his own concerns with the bill in its current form last Thursday, this time calling attention to what he felt was inadequate language.
“These things should not be allowed to go unchecked,” he said.
After the deputy premier’s contribution, Opposition Leader Ronnie Skelton asked to have the House recess until the following day to discuss the bill with his constituents.
“I recommend for us to do what’s good and right,” Mr. Skelton said. “You heard the member for the Third, the deputy premier, the extensive things that he read out; [the new bill] needs us to address our minds to all of this stuff, so we can inform the public in a much more educated way.”
For this, Mr. Skelton asked that the HOA resume the following day or week, but he was given just a half-hour recess before the floor was re-opened to debate.
Concerns
Standing once again was Mr. Walwyn, who lambasted government for speeding through the legislative process.
“We’d have just gone through the Police Bill — first, second, third reading — and then the public doesn’t see the final bill. They’re still wondering what it is really actually happened because all they would have seen would have been the first draft which would have been alarming,” Mr. Walwyn said. “They wouldn’t have seen the final draft to help to allay their concerns and we can’t do this to the public. And here we are now again, with this bill, all because we’re trying to meet a deadline to please some people.”
Password rule
Though he expressed reluctance to debate the bill under the scheduling circumstances, Mr. Walwyn proceeded to highlight his concerns with the new amendment.
Some of its provisions, Mr. Walwyn warned, could interfere with rights guaranteed by the Constitution by enabling law enforcement to force suspects to give up the passwords on their phones.
“If you go to the Constitution of the country, … it says any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed promptly as prescribed by law in a language that he or she understands of the reason for his or her arrest or detention or his or her right to remain silent,” the opposition member said. “You have a right to remain silent. That extends to your password, your information on your phone.”
‘Reluctant’ contribution
Opposition member Lorna Smith, who Mr. Wheatley fired from the deputy premier role last October, also spoke in support of the opposition’s critiques.
“I also rise reluctantly to speak on this bill before us,” she said. “And I say reluctantly because the night is far spent, and we need the time to debate, to properly debate this very important bill.”
She then echoed Mr. Walwyn’s concerns regarding the bill’s constitutionality.
“We’ve got a Constitution that had a whole section on human rights, and we respect those human rights,” she said. “We live by those human rights. And we have to make sure, as I said before, that we balance the rights of our people with making sure that there is not excessive force.”
Bill passes
On Monday, the HOA resumed its sitting, and legislators entered a closed-door committee session that lasted about nine hours before unanimously passing the bill with amendments later in the day. The final bill now awaits the governor’s assent, after which it will be Gazetted and made public.
After the amendment passed, however, Ms. George-Massicotte warned the government about relaxing the rules to fast-track time-sensitive legislation in the future.
“I understand when matters are time sensitive, we somewhat relax the Standing Orders to allow for the matters to go through,” the speaker said. “But what I’ll say is that we should be mindful for it not to amount to abuse in any way. We can ensure that these bills, for example, are brought in advance or at least notification in advance, so that we don’t find [ourselves] in this position.”