More than a year after Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke was extradited with evidence collected using the Interception of Communi-cations Act and the controversial memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Jamaica and the United States, the Government and Opposition remain worlds apart on the interpretation of the legislation.
Yesterday, after locking horns over differences on several sections of the bill, senators voted to amend some aspects of the existing legislation with the Opposition not voting ‘aye’ but not saying ‘nay’.
The Opposition signalled its dissent through Senator Mark Golding, who said some of the changes being proposed were unnecessary.
Under the existing Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the sharing of information was given the green light, and the 2006 MOUs signed by former National Security Minister Dr Peter Phillips allowed for the taped conversations to be used as evidence in indictments for extradition.
However, since the extradition of Coke, the former Tivoli Gardens strongman, the Government has said changes to the legislation must be made.
The debate centred on Clause (3) Section 15 of the Principal Act and leader of government business in the Senate, Dwight Nelson, outlined some of what was being sought.
At the heart of Government’s contention is that foreign countries must share information collected during the tapping of the phones of suspects with authorities in the requested state.
The Government wants disclosure of the officer and entity making the request for the warrant under the section, the facts or allegations giving rise to the application, and disclosure if the applicant will be seeking the assistance of any person or entity in implementing the warrant and for sufficient information for a judge to direct in accordance with the section.
Provisions adequate
However, the Opposition said the existing provisions were adequate and the suggested change would only tip off suspects.
After lengthy discussions, senators agreed that the matter would go back to Cabinet for consideration to remove the responsible minister from the process and leave it to the courts to determine whether information gathered during the wiretap should be revealed.
“It is better to have the court do it rather than a minister because that minister may become compromised,” Opposition Senator A.J. Nicholson later told The Gleaner.
After Cabinet consideration, the bill will return to the House of Representatives for debate and passage before returning to the Senate.
Source-JA Gleaner
