Finally it would seem that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is making an attempt to put some framework in place to justify the existence of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), which has operated for the past four plus years without any legislation.  There also seems to be an attempt to now cover up some blatant wrongdoings carried out by this government during this administration.

“Bid to intercept letters, emails – Bill tabled to allow police to snoop on communications” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “THE government has tabled a bill in the House of Assembly that aims to create a ‘single legal framework’ that would allow the Commissioner of Police to obtain a warrant from a judge to intercept and examine a person’s communications from telecommunications operators, internet providers and postal services for a period of three months.

According to the Interception of Communication Bill, 2017, which was tabled on Wednesday night, this would be done in the ‘interest of national security,’ which is defined as protecting the country from ‘threats of sabotage, espionage, terrorist acts, terrorism or subversion.”

First, I would like to note it is being suggested by the government itself that they have already had an entity up and functioning and now seeks to “create a ‘single legal framework’ for it, which would mean that the government is now conceding that this entity has been operating illegally.

The definition of “in the interest of national security” is almost laughable as it is extremely broad and far reaching and invites the Commissioner of Police with the permission of the Attorney General’s office, to at times, violate the Constitution of The Bahamas; allow me to explain because I can already sense persons getting angry or just simply confused.

Question; how does one determine what is in the best interest of national security and what is an act of subversion?

Subversion: the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution.

This takes me back to the Save The Bays case and the ‘leaked emails’ that were tabled in the House of Assembly by Education Minister Jerome Fitzgerald with Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fred Mitchell in tow.  In this case these ministers attempted to make an argument that Save the Bays was not really an environmental group but rather a ‘terrorist’ organization with the aim to destabilize the Progressive Liberal Party government, an accusation that he has yet to prove.

So now, let us take that case and place in at a place in time where this bill, which has just been tabled, is actual law, now ask yourself; could the government make a clear case that this organization was actually attempting to destabilize the government and thereby obtain the necessary permission  from the Attorney General to then be able to access their emails?, because even the ‘Hon’ Jerome Fitzgerald admitted to needing the emails, which he obtained by questionable means,  to make his case.

Who would decide what is in the best interest of the country and exactly what would be required of them to make a case to a judge to obtain a warrant in the first place?  These questions need to be answered as the bill seems to be a bit too open-ended and open to interpretation for my concern. 

“To receive such a warrant, it must be proven that the information to be inspected cannot be acquired by any other means, the bill notes”, I guess now this in the end to the ‘political garbage can’ and receiving others persons personal information in ‘sealed envelopes’, which just magically appear from ‘somewhere’.

“The Attorney General would also have to be satisfied that the warrant is needed in the ‘public interest or interest of justice”; so according to this law if I were to receive information that ‘someone’ had communicated the desire to have several persons killed; it then would be fully investigated, or will I then be vilified and made the person of interest according to who the accusation is made against?

This we will have to wait and see; I am not saying that this law is not needed or necessary but I am saying that in light of recent events; I do not feel that as written, it will or can fairly be applied especially by this present government and I also feel that it would be necessary for the position of Attorney General to be independent of any political organization and therefore be a position where one is elected and not appointed

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END