The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Grand Bahama Human Rights Association yesterday hailed the postponement of debate on the Interception of Communications Bill 2017 for public consultation as a landmark victory.

Amid growing pushback against the so-called “spying” bill, Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson, QC, on Tuesday night defended the need for the bill but announced that her office will lead a “period of public consultation” on the legislation.

She said this decision was made because of concerns that the public is being “misled very substantially” about the content of the proposed legislation and that much of the debate over the issue has been partisan.

However outside of the House of Assembly yesterday, Leader of Government Business Dr Bernard Nottage said Mrs Maynard-Gibson’s statement did not mean the bill had been “delayed.”

“That’s not a delay, the bill has been tabled, the public has responded to what they receive the bill to be about,” Dr Nottage, minister of national security, said. “It’s clear to us that the purpose of the bill is being misrepresented by those who are commenting on it, and like we have done with many bills in the past, we have determined that we will have a public education exercise so that the public will know exactly what the bills are about rather than listening to hearsay which is inaccurate.”

Dr Nottage added: “So it’s not a delay, we don’t have a timeframe before or after that the bill must be done.”

Critics have said the bill can impede civil liberties if enacted without public consultation. This week former Court of Appeal President Dame Joan Sawyer and Free National Movement Leader Dr Hubert Minnis raised concerns about it.

According to Dr Minnis on Monday, debate on the bill was scheduled for yesterday.

The GBHRA, one of several organisations that endorsed a petition to “kill the bill,” issued a statement yesterday on the government’s decision to postpone debate.

“The postponement of Interception of Communications Bill 2017 for public consultation marks the dawn of a great new day for civil society and public interest activism in the Bahamas,” the group said.

“It is a landmark victory for the concept of ‘we the people’ and a precedent that will alter the political landscape of the country forever. For far too long, the elite political class has dominated national affairs with unquestioned authority and total impunity, while ordinary citizens remained unaware of the incredible power vested in them by their Constitution. The average Bahamian believed there was nothing he or she could do to influence national decisions, other than running for office.

“With this one victory, all that has changed. With this one victory, members of the public now know that the real power is vested in their hands and that at the end of the day, government is answerable to the citizenry – not the other way around. “

Although the GBHRA denied Mrs Maynard-Gibson’s assertion that the pushback was politically motivated, the group thanked the government, “and the attorney general in particular, for accepting the will of the people and backing down from the dangerous and unconstitutional course upon which it had been engaged.”

“Now, we as a society have a chance to balance the very important matter of ensuring that law enforcement are able to deal with modern threats effectively, with the crucial question of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals,” the human rights group stressed.

Mrs Maynard-Gibson, in Tuesday’s statement, said the Interception of Communications Bill has two main purposes: “To ensure that the police have a critical crime-fighting tool in their arsenal, by modernising the law that allows the police to intercept the planning and execution of serious crimes, including drug and gun trafficking, cybercrimes and other criminal activities; and the second is to add a new privacy protection for Bahamian citizens, so that from now on, independent judicial review would be required before a citizen’s communications could be monitored or intercepted.”

She also said that in her consultations with various people and groups, “the more people learn about the legislation, the more they support it.”

“That is because all Bahamians who are concerned about crime and security want to ensure that our police have a legal path to intercepting the communications of criminals,” Mrs Maynard-Gibson said. “They also understand that the Listening Devices Act, first passed 45 years ago, long before electronic and digital communications became commonplace, did not keep pace with modern technology.

“In addition, contrary to many of the concerns that have been raised, the legislation adds, rather than removes, protection for private citizens. It does so by adding new protective steps - a judge in the Supreme Court must grant the police permission to intercept any citizen’s communications, if the judge finds that reasonable suspicion is justified and the Supreme Court sets a time limit for the duration of the interception. Any extension beyond that time limit must be granted by the Supreme Court.

“And the Supreme Court can also give instructions as to how and when those records should be destroyed when the threat is removed. These new protective steps safeguard citizen privacy in a way that meets concerns raised in a recent Privy Council case on the Listening Devices Act, which specifically recommended that consideration be given to providing greater protections to Bahamian citizens.”

She added: “Because we are concerned that the public has been misled very substantially about the content of this legislation, we have decided to add a period of public consultation, which will be led by the Office of the Attorney General. During this period, we will work with civil society to ensure that Bahamians will have an opportunity to learn about and review the legislation, have their questions answered and their concerns addressed.”

The Interception of Communications Bill will provide for the “interception of all communications networks regardless of whether they are licensed as public or not.”

The bill says this will include telecommunications operators, internet providers and postal services. Under the current draft, the Commissioner of Police, or someone acting on his behalf, would have to petition the Attorney General to make an “ex parte” application to a judge in chambers for an interception warrant.

We March Bahamas, another civic group that endorsed the online petition, cancelled its planned six-hour protest that was to begin 4pm yesterday at Arawak Cay.

A post on Facebook by Ranard Henfield, the community activist behind the We March movement, confirmed that the march had been called off.

However, Mr Henfield reminded the public to “not for a moment think the government will not try and bring this bill up again before elections or after elections if they win. Stay ready to apply even more pressure if they refuse to take our suggestions and amendments over the next few days.”