The Gazette of the Disaster Risk Management (Emergency Measures) (No. 11) Order, 2020 is available. It contains measures announced by Prime Minster Holness in Parliament on Tuesday, July 28, 2020. Many of the measures will expire on September 30, 2020, unless amended prior to that date.
In Parliament on Tuesday (July 21, 2020), Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck opened the debate on his motion to amend the Independent Commission of Investigations Act, 2010. In a presentation lasting less than ten minutes, he laid out the government’s position regarding the proposed amendments and the process to be followed to get there. No-one else spoke in the debate on Tuesday. Minister Chuck ended his statement saying that it was the intention that the debate should be concluded next week:
“Mr Speaker, I now ask for a suspension of the debate and hope that other Parliamentarians will see it appropriate to make their contributions next week when we hope to close the debate.”
I wonder who will speak next week and for how many minutes.
As Minister Chuck has indicated before, the Government is asking the Members of the House to support all the recommendations included in the 2015 report of the Joint Select Committee that reviewed the INDECOM Act, except the recommendation to give INDECOM the power to prosecute.
When Minister Chuck spoke about this recommendation on Tuesday, he added “And I dare say, Mr Speaker, I was one of the strongest proponents of that view. ” The view that INDECOM needed the power to prosecute.
Minister Chuck’s change in position seems to be based primarily on the increased number of prosecutors at the Office of the DPP. He spoke generally about the increased numbers, and referred to an existing MOU between the Office of the DPP and INDECOM:
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that a MOU was arrived at in March 2018 between the ODPP and INDECOM whereby, among other things, two prosecutors were assigned specifically to liaise directly with and treat with INDECOM matters. Indeed, if more prosecutors are needed to deal with INDECOM matters in a timely manner, I am assured by the DPP that one or more prosecutors can be so assigned.
Minister Chuck’s Opening statement, p. 2
What he did not do was to provide any data on how that MOU has functioned. There was no data, for example, on the number of files INDECOM has sent to the ODPP each year; no data on how long it has taken for the ODPP to make decisions on the files sent; no data on the causes of any delays; no data on what decisions have been made (without identifying the individual cases themselves, but whether decisions were made to prosecute, to send to coroner’s court or for disciplinary proceeding or other options).
Beyond the Minister’s assurances, what would Members of Parliament (and members of the public) rely on to assess how the ODPP has managed the INDECOM files to date and will be able to manage them in the future?
Although the Minister didn’t specifically refer to the Joint Select Committee recommendation that INDECOM should clearly have the power to arrest and charge, this is not being supported by the Government either. (See Section 20, p. 10 of the report.) And Minister Chuck didn’t give the reasoning for this in his presentation.
Mr Chuck listed a number of additional amendments to be included and set out the intended process if the motion passes:
These recommendations plus others in the Report will be introduced in a Bill to amend the INDECOM Act and drafting instructions will accordingly be provided to OPC at the close of this debate and after further consideration by Cabinet. I hope that the proposed amended Bill will be tabled in Parliament during this fiscal year.
Minister Chuck’s Opening statement, p. 4
Next week is scheduled to be the last week before Parliament goes on its summer break. This debate is likely to be completed and the motion passed without much notice. And this will be a blow for police accountabilty measures in Jamaica. There will still be the opportunity to advocate for inclusion of these powers up until a new Bill is actually passed, although Minister Chuck has indicated the Government’s position.
INDECOM, under the leadership of its first Commissioner – Terrence Williams – has had a significant impact in its first ten years. I wonder what the next ten years will bring…
Related Documents
Motion Regarding Amendments to the Independent Commission of Investigations Act, 2010 brought to the House on May 27, 2020, by Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck. (If I find a better copy of the motion, I will post it.)
Text of Minister Chuck’s Opening Statement in Debate on INDECOM Act Amendment Motion
The contract of the current Commissioner of the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) comes to an end in a few days time. Commissioner Terrence Williams, INDECOM’s first commissioner, has provided the body with strong leadership in its first ten years of existence. There will be time to review his time in office, the course he has charted for the organization and the significant impact it has had since it came into being in 2010.
But in this short blog post, I want to raise the issue of the appointment of the next Commissioner of INDECOM. At this point, a few days before the current Commissioner leaves office, the public has no idea who the new Commissioner will be. We have no idea if the selection process has begun. If it has begun, we have no idea what stage it is at. In all likelihood, we will wake up one morning to the announcement that the Governor-General has appointed the new Commissioner and we will at that point be told the name of the person selected to lead this very important Commission of Parliament.
This is because the INDECOM Act follows the formula for appointment of a number of public posts both in the Constitution and in some legislation. In this case it is appointment by the Governor General after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The formula varies for different posts. But what is common to all is that the public isn’t privy to the process, but merely receives the news of the appointment when someone who is part of the process tells us.
The process for appointment of the Commissioner of INDECOM is set out in Section 3(2) of the INDECOM Act:
“The Commission shall consist of a Commissioner, who shall be appointed by the Governor-General by instrument under the Broad Seal, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, from persons of high integrity, who possess the qualifications to hold office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica.”
Is this an appropriate formula for a modern democracy? The issue has been raised before in regard to other posts. Perhaps it is time for this formula to be reviewed and replaced by more transparent processes. This may be harder to do where it appears in the Constitution, but not as hard when it appears in ordinary legislation.
We may indeed have the appointment of an excellent person for the post of the new Commissioner. But it shouldn’t come in the form of a surprise fait accompli. Not in the year 2020.
The Gazette of the Disaster Risk Management Order No. 10 was posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice today (July 20, 2020). It contains measures announced by Minister of Local Government Desmond McKenzie in Parliament on July 14, 2020. The Gazette is dated July 15, 2020, although it was not available when I called Jamaica Printing Services on July 17 to ask if I could obtain a copy.
As of the time of posting my blog, the gazetted copy of the Order has been posted on the Ministry of Justice website, but not yet on the Office of the Prime Minister or Ministry of Health and Wellness websites.
The Gazette of the most recent Disaster Risk Management (Enforcement Measures) Order was posted on three government websites this afternoon (July 9, 2020). The Gazette of this Order – No. 9 – is dated July 1, 2020, although it wasn’t gazetted on or before July 1. This doesn’t surprise me anymore, as it seems to be common with the gazetting of these Orders, that they are given a date which is earlier than the date on which they are actually gazetted.
On January 24, 2020, Mr Noel Chambers died in the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre.
On June 2, 2020, the public was made aware of Mr Chambers’ death when the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) released its First Quarterly Report for 2020 at a digital press conference. The details given about Mr Chambers’ incarceration and death were horrifying and outraged the country.
“At the time of his death Mr. Chambers was 81 years old. He was incarcerated on February 4, 1980 and had been in prison for 40 years without being tried. He was being held at the Governor General’s pleasure, deemed unfit to plead to a charge of murder. Therefore he was being held in custody without being convicted for an offence….
At the time of his death he was in a deplorable physical condition. His clothing was filthy and his body showed evidence of chronic emaciation. He was covered with what appeared to be vermin bites, live bedbugs (‘chink’) and he showed signs of having bed sores.”
(p. 5, INDECOM First Quarterly Report 2020)
In the days following news of Mr Chambers’ death, we were told that more details regarding the circumstances surrounding his death and the government’s response would be given when Minister of National Security Horace Chang gave a statement in Parliament. The Department of Correctional Services, which manages the prisons, falls under the Ministry of National Security.
On June 16, 2020, Minister Chang gave a statement in Parliament. This is the text of the statement…
I have a number of concerns arising out of this statement, but the one I want to focus on here is the audit announced in Paragraph 4 of Minister Chang’s statement:
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that a comprehensive audit into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Chambers has been commissioned. This audit is expected to not only reveal the circumstances specific to his death but also to thoroughly examine the procedures involved in the treatment of inmates who are deemed unfit to plead. In the interim, I wish to outline the details of preliminary findings from the special investigation undertaken by the Department of Correctional Services.
“…a comprehensive audit into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Chambers has been commissioned.” This is what the Parliament was told and by extension the country as a whole. This is put forward as a major mechanism for uncovering the details surrounding Mr Chambers’ death, for accountability and for recommending changes in the systems that allowed for his incarceration and death.
“…a comprehensive audit into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Chambers has been commissioned.”
Who commissioned the audit?
Who is carrying out the audit? What body? Which individuals?
What are the terms of reference of the audit?
What resources and powers have been granted for the carrying out of this audit?
What is the timeline for the completion of the audit?
To whom will the audit report be sent once it is completed?
Will the audit report be tabled in Parliament? Will it be made public?
If the answers to these questions are not made public, it will be difficult – if not impossible – for the public to hold the government accountable for this process and any subsequent action.
One reason why greater transparency is absolutely necessary is that this audit process may be being carried out by entities and/or individuals responsible for the circumstances that led to Mr Chambers’ incarceration and death.
More information is necessary, Minister Chang.
We need to remember that it wasn’t the Ministry of National Security that brought Mr Chambers’ death to public attention. Without INDECOM’s report, we would not have known.
Three reports from the Integrity Commission were tabled in Parliament today, June 30 2020. Two are special reports of the Commissions investigations into allegations regarding the functioning of Petrojam Limited; the third is the Annual Report of the Integrity Commission for 2019/2020. The point of this post is simply to make these reports more widely available.
This was the view from my window one morning last week:
Then a plume of Sahara dust swept across the Atlantic into the Caribbean, not an uncommon event, but this was perhaps the worst in fifty years, they said.
And with the dust in the air, this was the view from my window on Wednesday morning. I could not see the hills!
That plume of Sahara dust has moved past us, here in Jamaica, though they say another will affect us in a few days time. But tonight, at sunset, I could see the hills again…against a salmon-coloured sky…
The electronic copy of the Gazette of the most recent Disaster Risk Management (Enforcement Measures ) Order has now been posted on the websites of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Justice. This is Order No. 8. The hard copy was not yet available from the Jamaica Printing Services when I called this morning (June 19, 2020).
Order No. 8 is firmly dated June 15, 2020, though it obviously wasn’t gazetted on that date. On Tuesday night (June 16, 2020), Prime Minister Andrew Holness brought the draft order to the House for discussion, as has been his practice. No copies of the draft order were circulated to the Members of Parliament, which has been the recent practice.
During the discussion, Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte responded to a question that had been posed by an Opposition MP and her preface to her response makes clear that the Gazette of Order No. 8 was not available at the time.
All right, so the Disaster Risk Management Enforcement Measures Number 8 Order was promulgated by the Prime Minister last week taking, took effect on the 15th, which was yesterday. This is the non-gazetted, it is being gazetted and should be completed by now, but this is it. You will see a number of improvement, clarity. Right, I’m just telling you. So, it, the law does not require the Order to be laid in the House, but it’s going to be brought here.
– Attorney General Malahoo Forte, Parliament, 16-6-2020
Tracking when the Gazettes of the Covid-19 Orders become publicly available has really raised fo me the issue of the dating of the Gazettes containing these Orders, as the Gazette often carries a date prior to the date when it seems that the gazetting has actually taken place.
How is the date for the Gazette determined? Is it the date on which the measures are first broadcast by the Prime Minister, but not yet gazetted? Or the date on which measures come into effect, but not yet gazetted? Or when the final draft copy is sent for gazetting? Or when the Gazette is actually printed?
It is an obscure process, but can have some significant consequences. I will try to find out more.
I am also posting here a copy of an amendment that was made to the previous Order, Order No. 7. Just for completeness.
I continue to have concerns about the delay in the publishing of the Gazettes of the Disaster Risk Management (Enforcement Measures) Orders after measures have been announced at press briefings by Prime Minister Holness. On Sunday, May 31, 2020, the Prime Minister announced changes to the measures, some of which came into effect immediately and the following day. On Tuesday night, June 2, 2020, the Prime Minister made a presentation about the new measures in Parliament. The Prime Minister held another press briefing last night, at which he made reference to the gazetted order while talking about the measures. The Gazette of Order No. 7 – the written document containing all the details – although dated June 1, 2020 – only became available today, Saturday, June 6, 2020.
And a continuing concern is whether what is contained in the gazetted orders differs at all from what was previously announced by the Prime Minister.
In Parliament on Tuesday (July 21, 2020), Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck opened the debate on his motion to amend the 
The contract of the current Commissioner of the 
These are the links to the document on the 
On June 2, 2020, the public was made aware of Mr Chambers’ death when the 
During the discussion, Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte responded to a question that had been posed by an Opposition MP and her preface to her response makes clear that the Gazette of Order No. 8 was not available at the time.
