House haggles over witness protection By Vernon Daley, Staff Reporter THE HOUSE of Representatives on Tuesday approved the Justice Protection Bill, which aims to give a legislative framework to the Witness Protection Programme. However, passage of the Bill was not without controversy as Government and Opposition members haggled over some of its provisions. Witness protection under the Bill will now include not just witnesses but others involved in the judicial system such as jurors, lawyers, law enforcement agencies and judicial officers. It also sets out how the system should be administered, who is admissible, and the process by which they are admitted. Additionally, it outlines the conditions of the programme, how information is shared, and penalties where the system is violated. It also addresses the relocation of witnesses and makes provisions for persons who want to quit the programme. A centre, operating out of the Ministry of National Security, has administered the Programme since its inception and will continue to do so under the Bill. Abe Dabdoub, the Opposition Member of Parliament for North East St. Catherine was, however, critical of the Bill which he said failed to give permanence to the administrative centre by enshrining it in the legislation. "This (centre) should be put in law and an explanation given as to how it will be composed," he said. He received backing from his fellow Opposition MP for Central Manchester, Audley Shaw, who suggested that the centre should have some element of autonomy like the office of the Attorney-General or the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But, National and Security and Justice Minister K.D. Knight, who piloted the Bill, fended off the objections, arguing that there was no need to have the Bill deal with the establishment of the centre, as the centre was already in place. "We are not seeking to establish a new creature. The creature lives," Mr. Knight said. Opposition members were nevertheless unyielding that the body should be given legal establishment. They claimed that if this were not done then a new political administration could easily dismantle the centre by ministerial action and thereby defeat the intention of the Bill.
|
