THE CENTRAL issue is this: should it be made possible for soldiers to be given police powers while assisting police in the course of law enforcement activity?
This is the central proposal of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Defence and Police Complaints) Bill 2013. The amended bill proposes, “When any unit of the Defence Force is charged with the duty of assisting any member of the Police Service in the maintenance of law and order and is engaged in so doing, the members of the unit shall have the same powers, authorities, privileges and immunities as are given by law to members of the Police Service.”
One of the first and main arguments advanced against the bill is: joint patrols are already being conducted and crime is down, therefore there is no need for any new legislation. The argument does not give sufficient value to the sacredness of a human life: it wrongly ignores that a single murder is too much.
The second main argument that has been advanced is that police are different from soldiers: the role of the Police Service is different from the role of the Defence Force. But why is mixing police and soldiers together a bad thing? In fact, the law entrenches the differences between the two by regulating areas where there is overlap – that is in joint patrols. (As a side note, the legislation does not create any new powers since it shifts powers already in existence for police to soldiers. A special majority was unnecessary.)
A third argument is that the bill, in its current form, gives the soldier the same powers as the police. This argument is odd, for the purpose of the bill is to do precisely that! Why should citizens be driven to disquiet if a soldier has identical powers to a policeman? Are we similarly disturbed by the policeman having those powers in the first place? In any event, the argument is wrong since the legislation clearly limits all exercise of the “full” police powers to “assisting the police”. Thus, a soldier cannot unilaterally go out and start acting like a police officer. They must 1) be appointed by the Chief of Defence Staff 2) be part of a unit then given specific authorisation to launch a particular action in assistance to the police. And whatever a specially-empowered soldier does it must be in, service of, “the maintenance of law and order.”
The most compelling arguments, however, relate to the implementation of the new legislation. For example, how will civilians be able to distinguish special soldiers from ordinary soldiers? Yet, on closer scrutiny even this argument does not hold. By way of analogy, the fact that persons can falsely pretend to be police officers by wearing uniforms, is not an argument for the abolition of the police. Hence, confusion over who is or is not a specially-empowered soldier is not an argument for or against the fundamental nature of that soldier.
What of confusion over the applicability of codes of conduct and lines of accountability? The objection is not fatal to the fundamental issue since it can be easily overcome by suggesting amendments for clear structures of accountability for joint patrol operations. (Incidentally, no amendments in this regard have been suggested by anyone.)
Overall, a clear theme in the objections to the bill is that it will be subject to legal challenge. This argument – which is commonly made in Parliament these days – is not for the Parliament to make, but for the courts to decide. In fact, the idea of an MP looking through a crystal ball seeing the bill collapsing before a judge implies that the legislature does not have adequate regard to the role of the independent Judiciary. If the bill has a genuinely justifiable aim, with safeguards inbuilt, it should be tried and tested in the courts. The spirit behind the law is to address crime and the law as presented has safeguards in place, in addition to a sunset clause.
The significance of the sunset clause has been completely ignored by the senators. Imagine we have a law on our books which removes a person’s right to bail for certain violent offences and that law was once passed because senators were satisfied that it was temporary and limited to a sunset period. Not so for this less draconian bill it would seem.
Joint patrols are already being done. However, they clearly pose dangers not only for soldiers but also for the entire administration of justice in a situation where there is a perception that evidence in court by the prosecution is made vulnerable simply by the presence of a soldier. The prosecution’s case is potentially weakened by simply suggesting to a jury that a soldier may have over-stepped his legal powers, whether he really did so or not. Thus, legislative backing to remove all vulnerabilities is justifiable.
Unfortunately, the central issues of this bill have been lost amid all of the noise in the Senate during debate. Things got so bad last week Tuesday, Independent Senators heckled a temporary UNC Senator who – notwithstanding the merits or demerits of his presentation – had been appointed by the President and, thus, had a right to be heard in silence and in accordance with the Standing Orders. This incident alone demonstrates how far this debate has drifted from its purpose. The debate, due to end next month, has long stopped being about a legislative proposal and is, instead, politics pure and simple. Unfortunately, the only people who stand to lose because of these games are citizens.
You are cordially invited to join us as we commemorate a remarkable journey of the past and embark on the promising path to the future at the UNC 35th Anniversary, Interfaith Function, and Service Awards. Date: Sunday, April 28, 2024 Time: 1:00 PM onwards Location: UNC Headquarters, #31 Mulchan Seuchan Rd, Chaguanas This special occasion will be a celebration of unity, diversity, and service to the community. We will come together in solidarity to honor our shared history, embrace our differences, and pledge our commitment to a brighter tomorrow. Your presence will truly make this celebration complete as we reflect on the past with gratitude and look ahead with hope and determination. We eagerly anticipate your presence as we mark this significant milestone in the journey of the UNC.
The soldier bill
by ANDRE BAGOO
THE CENTRAL issue is this: should it be made possible for soldiers to be given police powers while assisting police in the course of law enforcement activity?
This is the central proposal of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Defence and Police Complaints) Bill 2013. The amended bill proposes, “When any unit of the Defence Force is charged with the duty of assisting any member of the Police Service in the maintenance of law and order and is engaged in so doing, the members of the unit shall have the same powers, authorities, privileges and immunities as are given by law to members of the Police Service.”
One of the first and main arguments advanced against the bill is: joint patrols are already being conducted and crime is down, therefore there is no need for any new legislation. The argument does not give sufficient value to the sacredness of a human life: it wrongly ignores that a single murder is too much.
The second main argument that has been advanced is that police are different from soldiers: the role of the Police Service is different from the role of the Defence Force. But why is mixing police and soldiers together a bad thing? In fact, the law entrenches the differences between the two by regulating areas where there is overlap – that is in joint patrols. (As a side note, the legislation does not create any new powers since it shifts powers already in existence for police to soldiers. A special majority was unnecessary.)
A third argument is that the bill, in its current form, gives the soldier the same powers as the police. This argument is odd, for the purpose of the bill is to do precisely that! Why should citizens be driven to disquiet if a soldier has identical powers to a policeman? Are we similarly disturbed by the policeman having those powers in the first place? In any event, the argument is wrong since the legislation clearly limits all exercise of the “full” police powers to “assisting the police”. Thus, a soldier cannot unilaterally go out and start acting like a police officer. They must 1) be appointed by the Chief of Defence Staff 2) be part of a unit then given specific authorisation to launch a particular action in assistance to the police. And whatever a specially-empowered soldier does it must be in, service of, “the maintenance of law and order.”
The most compelling arguments, however, relate to the implementation of the new legislation. For example, how will civilians be able to distinguish special soldiers from ordinary soldiers? Yet, on closer scrutiny even this argument does not hold. By way of analogy, the fact that persons can falsely pretend to be police officers by wearing uniforms, is not an argument for the abolition of the police. Hence, confusion over who is or is not a specially-empowered soldier is not an argument for or against the fundamental nature of that soldier.
What of confusion over the applicability of codes of conduct and lines of accountability? The objection is not fatal to the fundamental issue since it can be easily overcome by suggesting amendments for clear structures of accountability for joint patrol operations. (Incidentally, no amendments in this regard have been suggested by anyone.)
Overall, a clear theme in the objections to the bill is that it will be subject to legal challenge. This argument – which is commonly made in Parliament these days – is not for the Parliament to make, but for the courts to decide. In fact, the idea of an MP looking through a crystal ball seeing the bill collapsing before a judge implies that the legislature does not have adequate regard to the role of the independent Judiciary. If the bill has a genuinely justifiable aim, with safeguards inbuilt, it should be tried and tested in the courts. The spirit behind the law is to address crime and the law as presented has safeguards in place, in addition to a sunset clause.
The significance of the sunset clause has been completely ignored by the senators. Imagine we have a law on our books which removes a person’s right to bail for certain violent offences and that law was once passed because senators were satisfied that it was temporary and limited to a sunset period. Not so for this less draconian bill it would seem.
Joint patrols are already being done. However, they clearly pose dangers not only for soldiers but also for the entire administration of justice in a situation where there is a perception that evidence in court by the prosecution is made vulnerable simply by the presence of a soldier. The prosecution’s case is potentially weakened by simply suggesting to a jury that a soldier may have over-stepped his legal powers, whether he really did so or not. Thus, legislative backing to remove all vulnerabilities is justifiable.
Unfortunately, the central issues of this bill have been lost amid all of the noise in the Senate during debate. Things got so bad last week Tuesday, Independent Senators heckled a temporary UNC Senator who – notwithstanding the merits or demerits of his presentation – had been appointed by the President and, thus, had a right to be heard in silence and in accordance with the Standing Orders. This incident alone demonstrates how far this debate has drifted from its purpose. The debate, due to end next month, has long stopped being about a legislative proposal and is, instead, politics pure and simple. Unfortunately, the only people who stand to lose because of these games are citizens.
Newsday
Share this:
Like this:
About the Author
PNM people guilty of voter padding
Procrastinating Senate fiddlers
Upcoming Events
YouTube Channel
Follow Us
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK