Right Steps & Poui Trees


3 Comments

State of Public Emergency Declared For Parish of St James

At a press briefing today, Prime Minister Andrew Holness announced that a State of Public Emergency had been declared for the parish of St James in western Jamaica. Also making statements at the briefing were Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck, Minister of National Security Robert Montague, Commissioner of Police George Quallo and Chief of Defence Staff of the Jamaica Defence Force, Major General Rocky Meade.

PBCJ - State of Emergency press briefing 18-1-18

(L to R) Major General Meade, Minister Montague, Prime Minister Holness, Minister Chuck, Commissioner Quallo

A recording of the full briefing is available via the Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica (PBCJ) at the following link: Press Briefing – January 18, 2018.

Below is a transcript of PM Holness’ opening statement:

Good afternoon, everyone.

As we are all aware and agree, the crime and violence – in particular murders – have been escalating in the parish of St. James. I have been advised by the security forces in writing that the level of criminal activity experienced, continued and threatened, is of such a nature and so extensive in scale as to endanger public safety.

In consideration of this, I wrote to the Governor General recommending the declaration of a State of Public Emergency for the parish of St James. The Governor General has signed a Proclamation dated and effective 18th of January, 2018. The Proclamation has been gazetted. A State of Public Emergency is now in effect for St James.

Under State of Public Emergency the security forces will have extraordinary powers and some rights are suspended. This does not mean that the use of these extraordinary powers can be arbitrary or are beyond review.  The declaration of a State of Public Emergency does not mean the suspension of the rule of law. The security forces are expected and have been directed to treat citizens with respect and protect the dignity and safety of all.

Clearly the operations which will be conducted, though directed at criminals and their facilitators – I want to repeat that, the facilitators of criminals – will create some level of general discomfort. We ask the public to cooperate with the security forces.

Now is the time, if you know where the guns are, please tell us. If you know where the criminals are, please tell us. The reward for guns programme is still in effect. The number to call is Crime Stop – 311 – or call the security forces hotline – 830-8888. {This was later corrected to give the accurate number – 837-8888.}

As has always been the stance of the Government, we will continue with a credible process of communicating with the public. We ask the press and the public to be understanding of the sensitivities of this matter.

Again, a State of Public Emergency is in effect for the parish of St James.

The Office of the Prime Minister subsequently sent out this release:Press release re State of Public Emergency 18-1-18 p 1

Prime Minister Andrew Holness has declared a State of Public Emergency in the parish of St. James effective Thursday, January 18.

The Prime Minister made the announcement this afternoon (January 18) at a press conference held at Jamaica House.

“Crime and violence in particular murders have been escalating in the parish of St. James. I have been advised by the security forces in writing that the level of criminal activity experience continued and threatened, is of such a nature and so extensive in scale as to endanger public safety”, said the Prime Minister.

The Governor General signed the Proclamation to bring into the effect the state of public emergency. The Proclamation has also been gazetted.

The constitution provides that a period of public emergency can be declared by a proclamation if the Governor-General is satisfied that action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any person or body of person in such a nature and on so extensive a scale as likely to endanger public safety.

Last year, 335 murders were recorded in St. James, which is twice the number of any other parish.

Prime Minister Holness outlined that under the state of emergency the security forces will have extraordinary powers and some rights will be suspended. He noted, however, “This does not mean that use of these extraordinary powers can be arbitrary or are beyond review. The security forces are expected and have been directed to treat citizens with respect and protect the dignity and safety of all”.

The security forces will have the power to search, curtail operating hours of business, access to places and to detain persons without a warrant.

In addition, all persons using all roads leading in and out of St James will be subject to vehicle and personal search. In various areas of city and township, there will be joint static and mobile patrol. Persons may also be stopped at various checkpoints.

Meanwhile, Security Minister, Hon. Robert Montaque made an appeal to the citizens of St. James for their full cooperation during the period. He acknowledged usual activities may be curtailed. However, he assured that the operations to be carried out by the security forces will be targeted at the criminal elements and their facilitators.

“Any information you have, we need it. We need your full cooperation in moving forward in restoring peace and order so that the good people can continue to contribute to the well-being of Jamaica”, said Minister Montaque.

If persons have any information to assist in the crime fighting effort, they may call crime stop, 311.

A special hotline has also been set up to be manned by the Jamaica Defence Force for persons to give information.  The number is 830-8888.

—30—

Below is a copy of the Proclamation by the Governor General declaring the State of Public Emergency. (I’m sorry it is such a poor copy, but it’s the only one I could find at the moment. If I locate a better copy, I will substitute it.)

GG Proclamation 18-1-18 p1GG Proclamation 18-1-18 p2GG Proclamation 18-1-18 p3

The Regulations governing the period of Public Emergency are to be tabled in Parliament next week Tuesday.

 

 

Advertisements


2 Comments

INDECOM Commissioner Addresses the Issue of INDECOM & Police Effectiveness

Terrence WilliamsLast night – January 11, 2018, in an address to the Kiwanis Club of Spanish Town, Commissioner of the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) Terrence Williams spoke about the often repeated claim that the work of INDECOM has had a chilling effect on police morale and has reduced their ability to perform their crime reduction functions effectively. Variations of this claim have been made by a number of people and organizations, including the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, members of the Opposition when they formed the Government, members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), including representatives of the Police Federation, which represents the rank and file members of the Force.

Below is the text of Commissioner Williams’ speech, entitled “INDECOM and Police Effectiveness: A Statistical Analysis”, as well as a PDF copy – Jan 11 2018 – Kiwanis Club of Spanish Town – INDECOM & Police Effectiveness

          Address by Terrence Williams Commissioner, INDECOM
                           at the Kiwanis Club of Spanish Town
                                         January 11, 2018
     Title: INDECOM and Police Effectiveness: A Statistical Analysis

I am sure you have often heard the claim that INDECOM has reduced police effectiveness causing an increase in crime. Some even say that the first step to reduce crime is to end INDECOM as we know it. These claims are dismissed by many as unfounded and illogical, but the effort to convince by repetition continues relentlessly. Of course there are some who may argue that the police must have a “free hand” and advocate that our national problem will be resolved if the police can act free of regulation and oversight. Those who peddle these arguments are then faced with this question: “Are you saying that the police cannot be effective if they are to be accountable for their actions?”

This evening a different approach will be taken in a reply, based purely on objective
statistics. Has the advent of INDECOM been coincidental with an increase in murder?
INDECOM speech Table 1 p2
Recall that INDECOM started its full operations in April 2011. Table 1, shows a general decline in murders since 2011. The average annual rate for 2004 to 2010 is 1554 murders per year whilst from 2011 to 2017 it is 1226. Thus there were, on average, 300 less murder victims since the introduction of INDECOM. It is also useful to further contextualize these figures against the population of Jamaica and in so doing let us turn our attention to the murder rate per 100,000 persons for the period stated above. The average murders per 100,000 for the pre-INDECOM period was 57.90 compared to 45.86 per 100,000 persons during the INDECOM period.

Similarly, the JCF statistics also reveal that the number of police officers killed has
significantly declined since the inauguration of INDECOM. All murders are deplorable but the killing of a police officer is particularly so given the fact that we depend on these brave men and women to preserve our social order.

On these facts, the claims that INDECOM’s existence contributes to the rise in crime in Jamaica and that the police need a “free hand” to fight crime is not supported. The search for causes and solutions for our endemic crime problem must therefore be sought elsewhere.

If we are looking at reasons for our high murder rates, we should consider the period after the year 2000 with consistently more than 1000 per year; and note the conditions that continue to prevail namely, the failure to effectively address organized crime.

If we are seeking solutions we should further look at the post 2010 period when murders were reduced by almost 40%. Professor Anthony Clayton, continues to point out that “this significant reduction in such a short time was seen almost nowhere else in the world before” and that “Jamaica did not follow through with the measures necessary to solve the crime problem and so we have returned to where we started”. It is submitted that the needed “follow through” was to get to the root of organized criminal gangs and to fully institute community policing.

Nicaragua, can provide some examples of how to sustainably reduce crime. Nicaragua’s neighbours, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, all suffer from high per capita murder rates. Honduras and El Salvador are amongst the highest in the world at 86 and 70 murders per 100,000 respectively. In 2015, Nicaragua’s murder rate was 7 per 100, 000 persons. Remarkably, Nicaragua maintains this low murder rate although, there is free movement of people in the region and so criminals can easily cross borders to commit crimes; despite being poorer than its neighbours, and having the lowest ratio of police to the population.

Nicaragua engaged in significant police reform to root out corruption. The model of
policing is a preventative and proactive one rooted in the heart of the community. Strong intelligence networks are employed especially in areas where organized crime is prevalent. Nicaragua recognized that repressive policing only achieves short term results. Jamaica can certainly learn from the Nicaraguan proactive community based policing model, because it is inclusive and instills a sense of confidence in the police service, one supported by a strong accountable and professional policing framework.

Another argument too often heard is that the police are less responsive to criminal activities because their morale is adversely affected by INDECOM’s investigation and charges. However, since inception only a small percentage of investigations have ended in charges. Further in 2014, the year of the greatest number of charges laid by INDECOM, also saw the lowest number of murders (1005) for 11 years. Notably, as seen in Table 2, where murders and police fatal shootings are considered together, the general tendency of an increase in fatal shootings when murders increase, continued after INDECOM started operations.

INDECOM speech Table 2
Consider Table 2 again. You may note three things. First, that, for a generation, we have had high rates of police involved killings but that these killings have declined since INDECOM started its operations. Secondly, there was a 16.25% decline in murders between 2013 and 2014 and in the same year a reduction in police fatal shootings by 55%. Thirdly, that the consistent high rates of police involved killings seem to have had no lasting effect on the murder rate.

The Ministry of National Security’s 2008 JCF Strategic Review: A New Era in Policing in Jamaica found that the JCF had weak internal accountability and was hobbled by endemic unlawful cultures. It is unfortunate that this Review is not more often consulted. It was the product of an august panel assembled by the State towards finding ways to improve the JCF. The Review is freely available online. I invite you to read it. Please pay particular attention to the “corrupt practices that have become endemic” frankly outlined on page 26. In the face of such unlawfulness how could the JCF be effective?

The Review called for “concerted, long term and coordinated effort” by the JCF and its oversight bodies to tackle the malignant cultures in the police force. INDECOM is playing its part in this very effort, yet naysayers continue to claim that this endeavor is stymying the work of the police. The JCF’s cultures rendered it ineffective to control crime and instead contributed to crime. These cultures could not have taken root unless they benefitted a group of persons and that group remains loathe to see the change that will relieve them of such improper advantage.

A disciplined police force cannot operate contrary to the law and in a state where some of its members are in continuous disaffection. Resisting and scapegoating the oversight mechanisms will only delay the needed change and distract from the real causes of crime.

The advent of INDECOM and the overall reform of the JCF to promote accountability,
ought to result in a sustainable reduction in crime. But, a resistant JCF retards such
improvement.

There is nothing to suggest that the work of INDECOM has caused an increase in crime. An accountable police force is an effective police force.

Related Document

In his presentation, Commissioner Williams referred to the 2008 JCF Strategic Review. For convenience, here are copies of that document and its appendices:

JCF Strategic Review cover

jcf_strategic_review_2008

JCF Strategic Review Appendices

jcf_strategic_review_appendices

 

 

 

 


7 Comments

What Info Shall/May Be Included in the #NIDS Database? – What the NIDS Bill Now Says

Whether you support the proposed National Identification System (NIDS) unreservedly or oppose it absolutely or fall somewhere in between, it would be useful to know what information the NIDS Bill passed on November 21, 2017, allows to be collected and stored in the Database. The list of information is set out in the Third Schedule of the Bill and the current Third Schedule is different in a number of respects, when compared with the original Bill tabled in the House on March 21 this year.

In the original Third Schedule, all information to be collected was mandatory. The current Third Schedule distinguishes between information which will be mandatory and shall by included and other information which may be included, some of which will be voluntarily given if the person being registered so chooses. NIDS Third Schedule heading

Part A of the Third Schedule lists the Biographic Information to be collected, all of which is mandatory, except for e-mail address.

NIDS Third Schedule Part A

Part B lists Biometric Information, which is in the categories of Core Biometric Information (B1 & B2), which must be included in the Database, and Other Biometric Information (B3), which may be included in the Database. It has been explained that the information in B2 would only be required when finger prints are not available from the person being registered. The details of this would have to be set out in the Regulations, which are still being drafted. B3(1) refers to distinguishing features, which may be included in the Database, and seems self-explanatory as part of identification, but it is not at all clear under what circumstances it would be expected that an individual’s blood type would be included in the database. Again this points to the fact that many of the details about implementation are to be set out in the Regulations and how important it is that the public has an opportunity to see the Regulations before they are passed.NIDS Third Schedule Part B

Part C lists the Demographic Information that may be included in the Database, but this is entirely optional and the person being registered only needs to give it if they choose to. It is important that this is made clear to people at the time of registration. (Number 9 in Part C is a repreat of Number 5 in Part A(1). It has been explained that this is repeated because the information in Part A wouldn’t be available for statistical purposes, while that in Part C would be, and this information would be useful for such purposes.)NIDS Third Schedule - Part C

Part D lists the other Reference numbers that shall be included in the Database, where they are available. Part E lists the Registrarial History which shall be stored in the Database. This includes information about an idividual’s  National ID cards that have been issued, cancelled or returned. It also includes the information about instances in which an individual’s identity information has been disclosed to a requesting entity. (Clauses 43-45 of the Bill specifically deal with Disclosure of Information.) This is important information that should be permanently stored, as it allows an individual to know to whom their information has been disclosed.NIDS Third Schedule - Part D and Part E

Two other changes since the original Bill was tabled in March 2017 have to do with DNA and with the Minister’s power to amend the Third Schedule.

The initial Bill did not include DNA in the list of biometric information to be collected, but it did not prohibit it. The Bill now specifically excludes the collection of DNA, in the definition of biometric information in Clause 2.

NIDS Bill biometric information definition

The Bill does retain an amendment to the DNA Evidence Act in the Sixth Schedule.NIDS Bill Sixth Schedule - DNA Act

The list of information that shall or may be included in the Database is not set in stone. It can obviously be changed in the future, as is the nature of legislation. However, changes to the Third Schedule cannot be made by the Minister by order, subject to affirmative resolution, as was the case with the initial version of the Bill, but would have to go through the full process for amending the law. This is Clause 57(3).NIDS Bill - Clause 57(3)

It will be important to pay attention to the Regulations which will set out many of the operational details for the implementation of the law. The devil can be in the details at many different levels.

 

 


1 Comment

350 Words Or Less: Have You Read The #NIDS Bill As Passed?

The National Identification and Registration Bill with the Senate Amendments was passed in Parliament on Tuesday (November 21, 2017), in what turned out to be a controversial process. Whatever you think should happen next, the Bill is now posted on Parliament’s website, if you would like to read it. It has not yet been signed by the Governor General.

The National Identification and Registration Bill

NIDS Bill pic 2

 

 


1 Comment

National Identification & Registration (#NIDS) Bill: Senate’s 168 Amendments

Last week Monday, November 13, 2017, the Senate passed the National Identification & Registration Bill with 168 amendments. This was the second day on which the Senate had held a marathon session regarding this piece of legislation, the first session being the previous Friday. It is intended that the Bill, commonly referred to as the NIDS Bill, will go back to the Lower House for passage quickly, possibly this week.

At the time of publishing this blog post, the version of the NIDS Bill that is on Parliament’s website is the version that was passed in the Lower House on September 19, 2017, including the 100 plus amendments made there. The version of the Bill with the Senate amendments has not yet been posted, though I hope it will be before the Bill returns to the Lower House.

If you wish to know what the current status of the Bill is, here is a list of the Senate amendments obtained from Parliament: NIDS amendments blog picAmendments moved to the National Identification and Registration Act 2017 by the Senate which can be read in conjunction withNIDS Bill from Lower House blog pic the version of the NIDS Bill currently on Parliament’s website.

UPDATE – November 21, 2017: During an online Twitter/Facebook Town Hall about the NIDS yesterday, Senator Kamina Johnson-Smith, the Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate, who piloted the Bill through the Senate, confirmed that the Bill would be tabled in the Lower House today with the intention of passing it today. She said that once the Bill was tabled, the updated version would be posted on Parliament’s website. What this effectively means is that the public will not have an opportunity to review the Bill with the Senate amendments before it is passed into law.

The timing for passage of the Bill was also confirmed in a tweet from PM Holness’ account. (Note that although the time on the tweet here says 1:28 PM, it actually was about 4:30 PM when the tweet was sent.)PM Holness NIDS tweet 21-11-17

 


1 Comment

Note-Taking in the Visitors’ Gallery in Parliament: 2002…Yes! 2017…No?

Last week Friday (November 10, 2017) I went to Gordon House to observe the continuation of the Senate’s deliberations on the National Identification & Registration (NIDS) Bill.

Gordon HouseWhen I reached the entrance to the Parliament building, a police woman was conducting a search of women’s handbags. I placed my handbag on the table and then was told, as others were before and after me, that note-taking wasn’t allowed in the Visitors’ Gallery and that I would have to leave my papers downstairs if I wanted to go up to the Gallery. The large envelope of papers I was carrying included not only my notebook, but also my copy of the Bill being debated, the Amendments List tabled in the Senate the Friday before and other documents about amendments that we hoped would be made.

I was very annoyed and expressed my annoyance loudly. In exchanges with the police personnel and with the Marshal, I indicated that the rule against note-taking had been challenged years ago and had been changed to allow people in the Gallery to take notes. I was informed that it had been revised last year, that note-taking was now banned and could only take place with the permission of the President of the Senate. Another member of the public and I decided to remain downstairs while the Marshal went to see if we would be allowed in with our papers.

While we waited, we saw Senator K.D. Knight entering and approached him and informed him of what we had been told. He said he would check to see what was happening.

Not long afterwards, the Marshal returned and indicated that we could go up to the Gallery, which we did, taking our papers and notebooks with us. A number of colleagues who entered after I did relayed similar accounts of being told they couldn’t take notes and one had had to leave his papers downstairs.

Later on, prior to starting his presentation on the NIDS Bill, Senator Knight raised the matter of people being told they couldn’t take notes in the Gallery. The President of the Senate, Senator Tom Tavares-Finson, responded saying that he wasn’t clear what the origin of this no note-taking rule was, that it apparently required his permission for notes to be taken and that he was giving his carte blanche permission in that regard. His decision was a much appreciated one.

The reasons for my frustration and annoyance were twofold. Firstly, a rule against note-taking in the Gallery makes no sense. It is hard to see any logical reason for it. Members of the media are allowed to take notes. The Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica (PBCJ) broadcasts the proceedings live, including streaming on the internet. What is the danger that is being protected against?

The other reason for my frustration is that in 2002 – fifteen years ago – Jamaicans for Justice (of which I was and still am a member), Transparency International (JA) and the Farquharson Institute wrote to Parliament asking for a meeting to discuss the no note-taking convention, which we felt should be repealed. We wrote to the Clerk of the House on March 28, 2002 and received a reply on June 13, 2002, indicating that in the interim a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of the House had discussed the issue, had decided that the convention should be abolished and that a motion to this effect had been put to the House on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 and had been agreed to.

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Orders Committee Held on May 28, 2002 at 2:20 P.M. ( Standing Orders Committee Minutes May 28 2002 ) say the following:Standing Order Committee minutes 28 May 2002

The Report of the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Representatives on Its Deliberations on Proposed Amendment to Standing Order No.65 and the Matter of Note Taking in Parliament ( Standing Orders Committee Report June 4 2002 ) says the following:Standing Orders Committee report June 4 2002

The Hansard Report for the Sitting of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 ( Hansard – House of Representatives June 11 2002 pp 626-643) contains the following record of the motion put by Dr Peter Phillips, then Leader of Government Business:

Hansard June 11 2002 aHansard June 11 2002 bHansard June 11 2002c

In 2002, the Government and Opposition members were in agreement that members of the public should be allowed to take notes in the Gallery. By their response to Senator Tavares-Finson’s decision, Government and Opposition Senators seemed to agree last Friday.

A number of us intend to follow up to find out why the no-note taking convention is once again in effect and to ask that it be removed…again. Hopefully, the problem will be quickly corrected.

(As a member and representative of human rights organization Jamaicans for Justice, I worked on this issue when it first arose. I remain a member of the organization. My blog posts are all done in my personal capacity, however.)

 


24 Comments

Voluntary? Not Anymore: National Identification & Registration Bill Enrolment Amendment

 

One of the things that has been said repeatedly in discussions and presentations about Jamaica’s pending National Identification System is that it wasn’t going to be a mandatory system. Yes, people would need a National Identification Card (NIC) or National Identification Number (NIN) for all transactions with the Government and its agencies. Yes, many private entities might require a NIC or NIN from someone in order to do business with them. You might end up not being able to function in the society if you did not have a NIC or a NIN, but there was no offence or penalty in the Bill for not having a NIC or a NIN.

But that has changed.

On September 19, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the National Identification and Registration Bill, with approximately 100 amendments. Two of those amendments were to Clause 20 in PART IV of the Bill, which deals with Enrolment. Clause 20 deals with “Enrolment of registrable individuals” and two new subclauses were added to the Bill:

NIDS Bill Clause 20 amendments

The penalty referred to in the Fourth Schedule is as follows:NIDS Bill 4th Schedule Clause 20(9) offence

So if someone doesn’t apply to enrol in the National Identification System, without reasonable cause, they will have committed an offence in law and will be liable to a fine of up to $100,000.

So much for persuasion via public education regarding the benefits of the system or coercion via exclusion from being able to interact with public or private entities. It is now made explicit. Enrolment will be mandatory.

A number of significant changes addressing some of the specific problematic aspects of this new piece of legislation have been made to the Bill since it was first tabled in Parliament on March 21 this year. Many problematic issues remain. The Bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

NIDS Bill title picThe current version of the National Identification and Registration Bill