Be careful lest we neuter the watchdog
ITHE EDITOR, Sir:
HAVE followed with much interest the bivalent commentary which has accompanied the recent declaratory ruling by the Appeal Court in its interpretation of the powers given by the INDECOM Act, culminating in an article in yesterday’s edition by eminent Queen’s Counsel, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown.
Having taken the opportunity to brief myself on the INDECOM Act of April 15, 2010, I would like to copy verbatim for the benefit of your readers the full contents of Section 20, upon which the case in reality turned, but which seems to have escaped the attention of those seemingly celebrating the ‘defanging’ of the police watchdog instituted by statute, to assist i n curbing excesses by the members of our security forces:
20. For the purpose of giving effect to sections 4,13, and 14 the commissioner and the investigative staff of the commission shall, in the exercise of their duty under this act, have the like powers, authorities, and privileges as are given by law to a constable.
Sections 4, 13, and 14, set out, respectively, the functions, the authority to initiate investigations and the conduct of investigations.
I make no claim whatsoever to any type of legal expertise, but some glaring questions come to my layman’s mind:
Was the curtailment of the inter ference of the DSP, who sought the declaration by the Appeal Court, effected in the name of an ‘Investigating Officer’ or under the rubric of ‘INDECOM’?
If the former, under what standing was this petition accepted by the Court of Appeal in the first instance?
What exactly does the Police Federation find to celebrate in the Appeal Court’s Declaratory Ruling?
STATISTICAL SUPPORT
There is a strong statistical correlation (not necessarily a cause-effect relationship) between extrajudicial homicides and the general level of homicides within nations. The celebratory statements by the Police Federation are, therefore, cause for concern, particularly in light of the spike in extrajudicial homicides in 2017 following the lull which accompanied the initial establishment of INDECOM in 2010.
Minimising Jamaica’s excessive rate of reactive violence will not be achieved by a corresponding increase in violent reaction by the State, but by a recognition and amelioration of the multiplicit y of contributor y factors deeply embedded in our history and culture. Resorting exclusively to the 1966 ‘unwritten’ policy of ‘Shoot first and ask questions later’ is but a recipe for continuing mayhem.
The State is obliged to take the lead in building ‘a gentler society’.
PAUL JENNINGS