The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Chief Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

AS parliamentarians debated and passed an amendment to the Defence Act, which would allow marines to serve until 60 without limitation, former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis expressed concern that the Davis administration might abuse the provision, citing its practice on rehiring retirees.

The amendment would repeal and replace Section 18 of the Defence Act, allowing marines to serve until 60 without limitation.

The current Defence Act allows retirement after 30 years of service or at the age of 55, but the introduction of a 40-year service limit in earlier amendments caused confusion and affected career expectations.

Under the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025, marines who complete 30 years of service or another prescribed period may reenlist with approval from the competent authority for further terms of service until reaching 60.

Retirees wishing to continue serving would have six months from retirement to reapply.

Yesterday, National Security Minister Wayne Munroe provided numerous examples of marines who joined the force at different times and were forced to retire at varying ages. He said the amendment addresses this issue and resolves inconsistencies regarding the retirement age.

He said the amendment was also an incremental step towards addressing attrition.

The bill received unanimous support but sparked concerns from opposition members.

Dr Minnis said that while the amendment seems straightforward, questions must be asked about the potential abuse or misuse of powers under this amendment, given the government’s policy of rehiring retirees.

He questioned what would happen to young officers seeking advancement if the Davis-led administration brought back a large number of retired officers.

“What this bill also allows for is the rehiring of defence force officers who have already met existing retirement criteria,” he said. “They will be allowed to come back and serve until they are 60. An administration more committed to good governance instead of politicising our national security institutions would not abuse such powers.”

“It would only bring back a few necessary officers who may have retired but still have a crucial role to play until age 60. Madame Speaker, can we say that about this administration?”

Dr Minnis said he feared the Davis administration would abuse the provision, but Mr Munroe dismissed his concerns.

He pointed out that the legislation defines “competent authority” not as a member of the political directorate but as the commander of the RBDF unless delegated to another officer.

“As much as the other side thinks that the Minister of National Security commands the police and commands the defence force, if they would read the legislation and the constitution, competent authority here means the commander of the defence force,” he said.

FNM Leader Michael Pintard said the party supports allowing officers to serve longer than 60 to help protect the nation’s borders and fisheries.

His concern, however, was with the alleged treatment of law enforcement officers. He questioned how the government could claim to be serious about national security when it is not doing everything necessary to improve the quality of life for all officers.

He reiterated concerns about unpaid pension contributions, police reserves being owed salaries, officers’ families no longer having health insurance and the government evicting officers from their homes with no proper plan to support them.

The opposition leader urged the government to move urgently to address these issues and said if not, their failures would be corrected if his party assumes office.

Mr Munroe pointed to the inconsistency in the opposition members’ statements, saying: “It seems very schizophrenic.”

“On one hand, they say we are to be cursed for bringing back persons on pension and paying them, but then we heard this morning that we should let them serve even beyond 60,” he said.