The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

SENATOR Ranard Henfield voted against the Interception of Communications Bill in the upper house on Friday, the only senator to do so.

He criticised the involvement of the attorney general in sanctioning interception devices as well as a provision allowing authorities to obtain entry warrants into homes.

His speech did not satisfy all his critics, however, with Progressive Liberal Party Senator Michael Darville telling The Tribune "he came out very soft against the government" compared to his vehement criticism of the bill when the Christie administration introduced a version of it last year.

Mr Henfield, appointed as an independent senator by Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis, said entry warrants, which would allow police to secretly enter people's homes and install interception devices, does not exist in similar legislation in Trinidad, Jamaica, the United Kingdom, and other countries.

He said no oversight mechanism has been identified to ensure that when authorities enter someone's home, nothing untoward happens.

He expressed fears the provision will disproportionately affect poor people, as those well-off "have sophisticated alarm and camera systems, with housekeepers that are always at home, hence making it nearly impossible to effect a secretive entry warrant to plant a listening device."

He said: "I also express our concern with the perceived veto power of the attorney general who gets to determine which applications for interceptions will make it to court. I vote no."

As a senator, Mr Henfield has repeatedly said he will be guided by civil society organisations that came under the umbrella of the We March movement when taking positions. Of those groups, Rights Bahamas has been the most persistent critic of the interception bill.

Nonetheless, Mr Henfield praised the government for the consultative process it initiated before tabling the bill and praised its removal of "sedition" as a ground on which an interception warrant could be obtained.

He defended Dr Minnis against charges of hypocrisy and flip-flopping, highlighting a quote from Dr Minnis as proof the prime minister merely wanted consultation before the bill was passed. That consultation has now taken place, he said.

In February 2017, Dr Minnis said: "On Wednesday in Parliament, the government intends to push through their Interception of Communications Bill 2017. This piece of legislation, which has been rushed and rammed down the throats of the Bahamian people, should not be allowed to stand. It is a breach of the privacy of the public at large, and it is our fear that this bill has more to do with blocking any opposition to this corrupt government than being a useful crime fighting tool. The government can say all it wants, but the simple fact of the matter is that we do not trust them. The Bahamian people do not trust this PLP government. To have this piece of legislation, with the dangers it posted to the country at large, being rushed at this late stage before a general election raises more questions about the true motive of this bill. It is unacceptable for an administration that took five years to bring forth a Freedom of Information Act to attempt to rush a bill of this magnitude without any form of consultation with the Bahamian people."

Dr Darville said Mr Henfield's speech did little to assuage critics who note his "soft" approach toward the FNM differs from the "radical" persona he cultivated ahead of last year's election when dealing with the PLP.

"He deserves to lose credibility and popularity because he was only an instrument of the Free National Movement under the guise of an independent group used to attack government policy," he said.

The legislation was passed in the Senate on Friday.