The Tribune

By Khrisna Russell

Deputy Chief Reporter

krussell@tribunemedia.net

ALTHOUGH passed in the House of Assembly Wednesday, the National Crime Intelligence Agency Bill contains elements that are “dangerous” and “unconstitutional”, Progressive Liberal Party leader Philip “Brave” Davis has insisted.

The Bill calls into question the independence of the body and appears to leave the door open to political interference. This is seen in clause eight of the Bill outlining that the director of the NCIA “shall be subject to the directions of the minister”.

It continues that the minister may from time to give general or specific directions to the director relating to the functions or exercise of the agency’s powers.

The NCIA Bill further gives the agency the authority to “use any force as is necessary and reasonable to achieve the objectives” of a search warrant. Contained in clause 28 of the bill, the provision brings into question the who is able to quantify what is defined and reasonable and necessary and how this can be done.

Additionally, the legislation makes it against the law in clause 27 to reveal the identities of the NCIA’s agents outside of the director and his deputy, but makes it a an offence punishable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to a prison term not more than five years or both.

These clauses among others makes the Bill “unworkable” and presented enough reason for the former Christie administration to park this same bill and not advance it, Mr Davis said yesterday.

According to the Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador MP the only difference between the Minnis administration’s bill and that of the former government is the insertion of the word “crime”, which he called a misnomer. He said the new bill also gives powers to the minister, which were not outlined in the old legislation.

“The minister can give directions both specific and general and the director is obliged to follow it, that’s concerning,” Mr Davis said. “First of all you have to recognise that this is setting up a spy agency and the truth of that is if you look at what this agency is going to be able to do you’ll see they are talking about espionage and threats to the Bahamas etcetera from outside. In effect we are setting up a spy agency.

“Further the bill speaks to the anonymity of employees and so the only face you have is the director and that makes the whole act unworkable. Now why is that? Because these same agents are empowered to question people on aircraft or vessels where they are authorised to request documents of people and once they do that t hey have to make themselves known. So that in and of itself makes it unworkable.

“That is why I believe the bill has to classify the employees those whose anonymity is necessary and those who are not.”

He also said: “The minister giving directions to the director is dangerous.”

Regarding search warrants, Mr Davis said this is an overlap and encroaches upon law enforcement agencies.

“They have to make a distinction between the coordination of an agency that is charged with the responsibility of collecting intelligence data, coordinating that data for the sharing of it with other law enforcement agencies.

“They ought not be empowered to search and execute warrants. They should leave that to the enforcement agency.”

Mr Davis went on to pinpoint which portions of the bill he saw as unconstitutional. He was referring to clause 27.

“We say that because they have not provided a reason to ask questions of a person or to seize a postal article or to request a production of documents. You have to have some reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is a threat to national security before you make that step. That’s like you walking down Bay Street and an agent coming and asking you questions. Then he could lock you up and then you could be fined because you refused to answer the question.

“That’s dangerous.”

Mr Davis said he hopes the government rethinks the Bill, which now has to go before the Senate before it can be fully passed and made law.