“Spy Bill’ and NIA Bill tabled in House” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Minister of State for Legal Affairs Elsworth Johnson tabled the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) Bill 2017 and the interception of Communication Bill (ICB), 2017, in the House of Assembly yesterday.

According to the ICB, the interception of communication of public and private systems would be authorized within a single legal framework.

‘The bill provides for the interception of all communication networks, regardless of whether they are licensed as public or not,’ the bill reads.

This will include public telecommunication operators and also Internet providers.

The bill also provides for the interception of communication carried wholly or partly by wireless telepathy and also encompassed all mail handling systems, which includes all parcel and courier services.

The bill further provides for the use of certain devices for listening to private conversations.’

The ICB would be in the ‘interest of national security’ and the ‘protection of The Bahamas from the threats of sabotage, espionage, terrorist acts, terrorism or subversion’, according to the bill.

The bill notes that interception may take place when the information cannot reasonably be acquired by any other means and ‘each interception or entry warrant is authorized by a judge, upon ex parte application by the attorney general, at the request of an authorized officer; which includes commissioner if police or a person authorized in writing by the director of the Bureau of Investigation.”

So far sounding like the very same bill that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), the very same bill that I opposed for several reasons when put forth by the former PLP government and the very first being who defines these act of sabotage, espionage and terrorism?  As per the bill it seems to be up to the attorney general, the former attorney general.  I felt the former attorney general could not be trusted at all, much less to  make an impartial decision if an application for an interception of communication was put before her regarding a political rival but today what is to stop the present attorney general from acting in the very same manner.  I feel that the fact that the position is an appointment makes the decision making in matters such as these open to suspicion; the person[s] making the decision  should be of an ‘independent body’ elected by the people, even if this means making the office of attorney general an elected office and not an appointment. Although this may not be a perfect solution, as anyone can be ‘brought’, at least make the process seem somewhat impartial.

At this time it would appear that the Free National Movement (FNM) is walking the very same ‘dark path’ that led to the demise of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the only way out of it in this case in through HEAVY consultation with the public.  The system should be set up to allow some recourse for the average citizen wronged by  abuses of this bill if it becomes law because the Free National Movement (FNM) must also understand even if they were to usher in this law with the best intentions in the world and were to never abuse it, there may those that follow them that take advantage of what they put in place.

END