The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

NOT only did Official Opposition Leader Philip “Brave” Davis decry the “hypocrisy” of the Minnis administration for seeking to enact its version of the Interception of Communication Bill, but he said in the House of Assembly yesterday the administration’s tabled bill infringes on the civil liberties of Bahamians in ways the Christie administration’s Bill sought to avoid.

The Minnis administration is facing criticism for trying to make the Bill law despite fiercely criticising PLP’s version in opposition. 

State Minister for Legal Affairs Elsworth Johnson, who tabled the Bill last week, described the Progressive Liberal Party’s version earlier this year as “dangerous.”

Mr Davis said yesterday: “The very person who called on all right thinking and concerned Bahamians to march in opposition to the ‘Spy Bill’ is the very member to table that which was so despised.”

Like former Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson pointed out recently, Mr Davis said the newly tabled Bill does what the PLP’s version sought to avoid: it puts power in the hands of politicians that affects the privacy of Bahamians. 

Mr Davis said: “The hypocrisy is that the Bill (we tabled) was in response to commentary made by the Privy Council the Bill that we had presented was in response to observations made by the highest court of the land. This Bill that was laid does not respond to that. The Bill (we tabled) was introduced because of observations and recommendations made by the Privy Council and the Bill that was laid by us was consonant with those recommendations. “The Bill that I’ve had a cursory look at since being laid does not appear on the face of it to be responding to the observations and recommendations made by the Privy Council. I take the liberty to manipulate some words my former parliamentary colleague Melanie Griffin liked to use.

“They are based in scripture and says, ‘A double mind is unstable in all his ways.’ This very aptly describes the new leadership of the FNM. They have not changed. Hypocrisy is the order of the day, and I’ll add another word, victimisation.”

The opposition has not specified what provisions in the new Bill gives greater power to politicians than it deems fit, but one of the more substantive adjustments to an otherwise identical Bill to the one the former administration tabled is the addition of a new section. 

Part VI of the new bill, titled listening devices, was imported from the Listening Devices Act, the law that would be repealed if the Interception of Communication Bill passes through Parliament. 

That sections gives the minister responsible for national security the power to authorise anyone to use a listening device for a period not exceeding 30 days. It also allows the commissioner of police, after consultation with the attorney general, to authorise police to use a listening device for a period not exceeding 14 days.

Mr Davis said yesterday: “We proposed for the Interception of Communication Bill to entrust the power to approve selective monitoring to the judiciary, a separate and equal part of government. This was part of the recommendation coming from the Privy Council and if you were to benchmark any such Bill you’d recognise that the ultimate decision to do so rests in the judiciary. We are probably the only country where, if the Bill passes as it is, that would have that distinction. It is confounding that the Bill now proposes that this power should continue to reside with politicians. This cannot be right and it is certainly not progressive or forward looking. In its current form, it must be rejected and I suspect it will be rejected by right thinking, freedom loving Bahamians as a rank, arrogant invasion of privacy and that’s why it was so ironic that the very person who called for a march against the Bill because he was concerned about this power being vested with politicians presents and lays a Bill that still contains the same provisions.” 

Mr Johnson rose on a point of order on the basis that Mr Davis imputed improper motives to him, but Deputy Speaker Don Saunders did not accept his point.

Mr Davis further said: “In its current form, the Bill violates the civil liberties and privacy by opening the door to political abuse and persecution. I dare say it takes away rights from Bahamians when we in this place should be about deepening and expanding democracy through the expansion of civil liberties and rights of Bahamians. I’m encouraged that I’m now being told that this Bill is not cast in stone because the government may listen to recommendations to amend the same. It is universally accepted that where the right to invade one’s privacy (exists), that right to do so ought to be determined by persons other than politicians. That is the major concern that we have with respect to the Bill right now because we were attempting to move it out of the hand of politicians but others cried for a march against the ‘spy Bill’ and it was not proceeded with and now we have a new one and we’ll see how that expands civil liberties as opposed to restricting it.”

The Minnis administration has started consultation on the Bill and has said it is open to revisions after these discussions.