The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Chief Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

BAR Association president Kahlil Parker criticised the Davis administration’s proposed Independent Commission of Investigation Bill, saying it fails to resolve lingering questions about the operation and management of law enforcement agencies amid declining public trust.

His comments came during a virtual forum hosted last night by the Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG). He appeared as a panellist alongside anti-corruption specialist Lemarque Campbell and youth ambassador Lashante Sampson. 

Mr Campbell described the bill as a “window dressing exercise,” adding that he doesn’t believe it would mitigate corruption. Ms Sampson touted it as a step in the right direction.

Government officials have suggested that the bill’s passage is central to restoring the public’s trust in law enforcement after a US federal indictment contained significant corruption allegations concerning the Royal Bahamas Police Force.

The commission would have sweeping powers to investigate misconduct by police or public officials, including inspecting relevant records, documents, and buildings, interviewing witnesses, reviewing procedures within security forces and public bodies, and ensuring that complaints are properly submitted and investigated.

Mr Parker cautioned the government against presenting the bill as a comprehensive solution to current allegations of corruption.

“I feel that the bill will suffer if it is that they intend that this is the only response to the issues we are contending with right now,” he said.

He stressed the need to address the fundamental concerns of the public and evolve how law enforcement agencies are regulated and disciplined. 

“We don’t want to drift into a police state,” Mr Parker added. “We want to make sure that you give the power to arrest. This is a sacred power that has to be ring-fenced by accountability and transparency.”

“So you know, the question of whether this is a good, positive step forward in that regard should not distract from the fact that we also have to have reconciliation and accountability on those issues. This bill does not do that.”

Mr Campbell expressed doubt that the bill would be effective, pointing to existing anti-corruption laws that have not been properly implemented.

He highlighted other gaps in the bill, saying it does not address whistleblowers and the reporting channels for submitting complaints. He questioned whether an anonymous reporting mechanism would be implemented. 

Separate from the bill, outgoing Police Commissioner Clayton Fernander has proposed creating an encrypted, anonymous whistleblower platform.

Mr Parker called for independent appointment bodies, saying the country should reconsider how senior officials are appointed, including the Commissioner of Police, judges, and public officials. 

He proposed that certain offices require independent vetting to ensure public trust.

“There should be a minimum standard that we expect from these office holders, because if the public don’t trust the government, and the government are picking the people without any scrutiny, without any independent oversight, then the problems are perpetuated,” he said.

Mr Parker, meanwhile, raised concerns about whether the bill’s objectives are clear enough, particularly regarding the relationship between the commission and the prosecution of offences.

According to the bill, if the commission deems a complaint worthy of investigation, it will conduct an inquiry and submit its findings, along with recommendations for charges, to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Mr Parker said it appears the commission is simply tasked with conducting investigations and then dumping “a dossier” on the DPP. 

Mr Campbell echoed this concern, taking issue with the bill’s reliance on the DPP, who he said remains accountable to the Attorney General. 

He said while the commission is granted investigatory powers, the Attorney General could still influence the DPP’s actions, particularly in matters of public policy, national security, and international obligations.

“For this bill to actually be effective,” he added, “the way it’s currently drafted is that you have a so-called independent commission that’s granted this investigatory powers. They then transfer all of that information (and) evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who ought to be independent, but still is beholden to the Attorney General. How is that the case?”

He said there is also concern surrounding the use of nolle prosequis, a long-standing practice that allows the Attorney General to halt prosecutions. 

He said the bill’s current draft lacks independence and falls short of meeting the highest international benchmarks for effective and efficient anti-corruption measures.