Jamaica: Golding's 'Dudus' dilemma

Golding and Lightbourne

A.E. Hueman, Contributor

Currently, Jamaica is in danger of becoming something of an international pariah. We were recently downgraded economically by both Bear Stearns and Moody's and also downgraded morally by Transparency International, but these are mere niceties in face of the thing that is threatening to demote us to the status of banana republic or rogue state.

This of course is the face-off between the Jamaican Government and the United States (US) in the matter of the extradition of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

The media are treating the matter gingerly, but already, two companies have received threats from his fans. The public seems to have adopted the attitude that the prime minister (PM) is between a rock and a hard place and is sitting back to watch. The circumstances deserve more attention.

Our seemingly unflappable PM is actually on a slippery slope teetering on the edge of an International Monetary Fund rejection and simultaneously trying to find a foothold as he walks barefoot along the razor's edge between antagonising the US and infuriating his volatile constituents, plus night and day wondering where he is going to find the next few billions to pay the nurses, or the teachers, or the police. And he is handling this ticking time bomb with all the aplomb of a pope - or someone who has O.D'd heavily on tranquillisers. The man is an enigma wrapped in a mystery. One has to applaud his phenomenal cool, but who can understand it?

Whatever one's opinion about the delay on the request to extradite Coke (and other unnamed prominent persons) to face drug and gun charges, any intelligent person must be aware of the gravity of the situation and the impact that the displeasure of the US will have and indeed may already be having on Jamaica's viability. Keep Coke, and we get the big stick from the leader of the free world; hand him over, and we may be able to repair some of the damage to our image and some access to meaningful economic assistance. It is not only the right thing to do, but the only sensible course to take.

Thus, it does appear that Bruce Golding and Dorothy Lightbourne would be best advised that for the good of this country they stop the legal titivating and filibustering and just hand over the multifaceted Mr Coke aka 'Dudus', 'Prezi' or 'The President'.

In Jamaica, Dudus is described as a businessman, show promoter, area leader and don; but in the US, the State Department is alleging that he is an illegal gun trader and a purveyor of dangerous and illegal drugs.

Of course, handing Coke over to the US authority will be unpleasant and possibly have some perilous consequences for residents, for Golding, and by extension, for the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP).

Risking civil unrest

Residents may suffer civil unrest, Golding may lose support in his constituency and could even lose his seat in the next election. Trouble is likely if Coke is indeed as popular, powerful and dangerous in this JLP garrison as he is made out to be. But is this really the case? Is it fear or love that controls his supporters? There may well be a large number of well-thinking residents who would prefer to live outside the shadow of a don.

If, as predicted, the removal of Dudus does cause riot and mayhem in Tivoli, it will be the job of the police (hopefully without the help of Reneto Adams) and the army to quell it. Are the prevalent rumours of plans for protests and insurrection and of Tivoli bristling with high-powered weapons true, or just greatly exaggerated? If they are true, is that not another good reason to send in the troops?

No two ways about it: the Dudus dilemma does present an enormous challenge to Golding, and by extension, to the JLP, and more important, to all Jamaica. Perhaps Golding sees the stand-off as a no-win situation in which he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't comply with international law and surrender the don to the US justice system. If Tivoli's response to the extradition is riot and mayhem and Golding has to send in the troops and invoke the Suppression of Crimes Act or call a State of Emergency just before the start of the tourist season, that's another blow to the economy and a double whammy to the economy and the JLP government.

Massive challenge

On the other hand, this massive challenge does come with a huge and enticing opportunity, an opportunity which, if intelligently and energetically used, can rid our island of a curse and transform Golding himself into a genuine National Hero.

Simply put, by cutting Dudus loose, Golding has a God-give opportunity to strike a crippling blow (hopefully the first of many such) against the corrupt gangland culture of the dons, which has taken over our many garrison constituencies, infiltrated mainstream politics, and is now threatening to get a stranglehold on both politics and society in Jamaica, land we love. Which politician would not rather become a National Hero than play second fiddle to a garrison don?

"There is a tide in the affairs of men

That taken at the flood leads on to fortune

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat

And we must take the current when it

serves

Or lose our ventures."

- William Shakespeare

Dear prime minister of Jamaica, we look to you to decide the better option.

Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.

November 29, 2009

jamaica-gleaner

ACP Countries: Sidelined by Europe again?

The European Union (EU) has not included in the Lisbon Treaty a crucial article that was a feature of treaties between the EU and African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.  The Lisbon Treaty is the new "constitution" of the EU and it will replace the previous treaties that guided the policies of the EU and the work of the European Commission (EC).

Representatives of EC have offered reasons for this omission which might have had a ring of credibility had the Caribbean not been put through the threats and demands that characterized the negotiations leading to individual Caribbean countries signing up to an unequal Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the EU.

It is difficult for skeptics to take the EC at its word.  Indeed, since the EC unilaterally denounced the Sugar Protocol leaving Caribbean sugar producers without a market that the Protocol had guaranteed, and since the EC further unilaterally amended the preferential terms under which Caribbean-produced bananas entered the EU market leaving banana farmers in dire circumstances, there is every reason to be ultra-cautious of actions by the EU and its Commission.

What is not clear is why the ACP countries have not protested at the omission of the article which they were entitled to do, and which they were urged to do by at least one activist lawyer in Brussels where both the EC and ACP secretariats are located.

It has to be assumed that the ACP representatives had good reason for not howling publicly in protest and that, at some point, they will let their publics know why they did not.  On the other hand, it may very well be that they did protest but were rebuffed by the EC, and, again, they chose not to let their publics know that, once again, raw power trumped moral obligation.  Then, it could be that the ACP representatives chose to do nothing at all on the basis that since the EC has unilaterally denounced what the ACP thought were other legally binding agreements, there was no point in even raising the issue, since the EU, at some point in the future, might abrogate an article in their own treaty if it did not suit them.  And, the ACP would be able to do nothing about it just as they did not make a legal challenge to the denunciation of the Sugar Protocol.

To be fair to the EU and the EC, my previous paragraph is pure speculation.  It may very well be that no representation was made by the ACP to the EU/EC by representatives of the ACP and therefore, the EU/EC had no reason for regarding any omission of the ACP relationship as an issue.

As background to all this, it should be pointed out that an activist lawyer in Brussells, Joyce van Genderen-Naar, wrote in March 2004 pointing out that the Article which "makes reference to the ACP countries in the previous EC/EU Treaties had been omitted from the text of the proposed Lisbon Treaty that replaces them". 

She said, paragraph 3 of Article 179 of the provisions for Development Cooperation in the current EC Treaty states that: "The provisions of this Article shall not affect cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the framework of the ACP-EC Convention".

Van Genderen-Naar went on to argue that "Article179, paragraph 3, refers to the special relationship between the EC/EU and the ACP-countries, which is the oldest and largest form of cooperation between Europe and countries from the South".  She contended that historical bonds "between Europe and the ACP-countries give Europe a special responsibility for these countries, which should not be forgotten and should be a part of the next Constitution for Europe. This responsibility is even more urgent, because after 37 years of cooperation 40 of the 79 ACP-countries still belong to the poorest countries in the world. Out of the 48 poorest countries in the world 40 are ACP-countries".  (The full text of her presentation can be read at: http://www.normangirvan.info/naar-acp-disappearance-from-lisbon/).

Very few in the ACP countries would seriously argue with van Genderen-Naar's contention.
She advised the ACP "to make an official request to the European Commission and Members of the Convention (representatives of the European Parliament and Member States) to insert a provision concerning the ACP-EC-Cooperation in the new Constitution in view of the special relationship between the EU and the ACP, historical bonds, responsibilities and mutual interest, as agreed by EC and ACP in Article 55 of the Cotonou Agreement" which says: "The objectives of development finance cooperation shall be, through the provision of adequate financial resources and appropriate technical assistance, to support and promote the efforts of the ACP States to achieve the objectives set out in this Agreement on the basis of mutual interest and in a spirit of interdependence".

The EU is redefining itself.  They are describing the Lisbon Treaty as more than a Charter; they say it is the EU Constitution.  Further, they have appointed a President of the EU and a common Foreign Minister.  Beyond this deepening of their relationship, it is clear that the majority of the 27 nations in the EU feel no responsibility for the former colonies of a handful; many of them believe that the EU's obligations are to the development and prosperity of its own member states. 

If there is no reference in the Lisbon Treaty to the ACP countries, the shift in Europe's attitude to them - evident in the unilateral denunciation of contracts and in the tactics of threat used in the EPA negotiations - will be confirmed.  So, too, will be the timidity of the ACP in exercising power that can come from joint action.

The ACP must find the strength to speak with one voice again; to resist divide and rule tactics; to eschew empty promises of aid; and to fund its own institutions particularly those which interact with the EU.  If the ACP countries remain mere supplicants without demonstrating a readiness to stand up together for themselves, then they will be omitted to their detriment from more than the EU's new arrangements.

27 Nov 2009 12:49:05

caribbean360

Bahamas: Opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Bradley Roberts insists Urban Renewal changes led to rise in crime

By ALISON LOWE:
Tribune Staff Reporter -
alowe@tribunemedia.net:


PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts yesterday branded claims that changes to the Urban Renewal programme did not lead to a rising tide of crime as a "wicked bold-faced lie".

He further charged that had Urban Renewal not been "watered down" under the FNM, the "blatant daytime robbery of some 18 tourists at Chippingham would likely not have occurred".

Mr Roberts claimed that for the Commissioner of Police to try to deny that adjustments to the programme did not result in an upsurge "in serious crime in 'over the hill' areas where the Urban Renewal Programme once flourished, is evidence that the Commissioner is clearly out of touch with the extent of crime and the harsh realities facing locals and visitors alike".

"As the Police Staff Association has now expressed, 'Commissioner Reginald Ferguson's retirement is a step in the right direction'," said Mr Roberts.

It was announced last week that Mr Ferguson is to retire from the force in January 2010.

Mr Roberts' comments come after the Commissioner reacted to statements that have been continually made by the Opposition PLP about the impact of alterations to Urban Renewal on crime.

Commissioner Ferguson told The Tribune that, contrary to claims made by the Opposition, he had seen "no empirical evidence" to show that changes to the initiative have caused an upsurge in crime in the country.

He added that allegations that "Urban Renewal is dead" as has often been asserted by the government's detractors are "a lie".

In yesterday's release, Mr Roberts quoted statistics which, he said, would provide the evidence Mr Ferguson suggested was lacking as proof that the FNM "made a fatal mistake in cancelling/reducing the Urban Renewal Programme".

In the statistics which Mr Roberts provides as evidence of rising crime, he quotes figures for murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, unlawful sex intercourse, burglary, housebreaking, shop breaking and stolen vehicles for 2007, 2008 and for some, 2009.

In the first five categories - violent crimes against the person - the statistics from Mr Roberts show that in the first two years of the FNM administration, incidences dropped.

However, in the last four categories, all crimes against property, incidences rose.

Overall, given the greater rise in the number of property crimes, which are generally more frequent that serious violent crimes year on year, vis-a-vis the less significant drop in crimes against the person, the figures quoted by Mr Roberts show that the number of crimes increased during the FNM's latest term in government, from 6,850 to 7,225.

The FNM has also recently released selected figures from 1999 to 2006 which it says show "the truth about Urban Renewal", comparing crime levels up to the end of the previous FNM administration in 2001, and under the PLP, when Urban Renewal was initiated, until 2006.

"The annual rate of serious crimes, such as murder, armed robbery and housebreaking at all times under their era of Urban Renewal remained higher than it was during the pre-Urban Renewal year 2001; and the murder and housebreaking rates were on the increase in 2006, the last full year of Urban Renewal on their watch," the party notes.

Reports appearing in the US and UK media over the last year indicate that rises in crime levels in those countries, particularly crimes against property, have been linked to recessionary economic conditions.

tribune242

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

The Gay Old Commonwealth

by Lucy Mathieson
Ex Coordinator, Human Rights Advocacy Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative ( CHRI):


When, during March 2009, Bruce Golding Prime Minister of Jamaica, dubbed by Time Magazine as the “Most Homophobic Place on Earth”, stated that "[w]e are not going to yield to the pressure, whether that pressure comes from individual organisations, individuals, whether that pressure comes from foreign governments or groups of countries, to liberalise the laws as it relates to buggery", it reinforced the marginalisation of human rights defenders (HRDs) in Jamaica who advocate for equal rights free from discrimination based on sexual preference. Jamaica is not alone in this respect. Eleven Caribbean Commonwealth nations have legislation criminalising consensual same-sex sexual acts including Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. HRDs in these nations working to promote lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights and bring change to the outdated legislation face hostility from authorities, limitations to freedom of expression and of the press, homophobic violence, denial of access to services and are forced to work clandestinely due to homophobic mob attacks. This is not solely a regional dilemma. Many other Commonwealth jurisdictions also maintain equivalent sections of these old colonial law as a means to harass, prosecute and persecute LGBTI organisations and individuals.

The influence of importing Victorian morality to the colonies is clear in the spread of laws across Africa, Asia and the Caribbeans. However New Zealand (in 1986), Australia (state by state and territory by territory), Hong Kong (in 1990, before the colony was returned to China), and Fiji (by a 2005 high court decision) have put that legacy, and the sodomy law, behind them. England and Wales decriminalised most consensual homosexual conduct in 1967. That came too late for the majority of Britain’s colonies which won independence in the 1950s and 1960s. With sodomy laws still in place judges and public figures have in recent decades, defended them as citadels of nationhood and cultural authenticity while at the same time complaining that homosexuality comes from the colonising West. They forget it was the West that introduced the first laws enabling governments to forbid and repress it.

The overlapping relationship of colonial and post-colonial identity formation is perhaps best illustrated from within Commonwealth African nations. In Buganda (the former Kingdom of Uganda) in 1886, the Kabaka (King) Mwanga, executed more than 30 of his pages within his royal court, apparently for refusing sex with him following their conversion to Christianity. The “reinscribing of certain corporeal intimacies between King and subject as sex (homosexual sex), in tandem with the more usual suspects (trade and Christianity), effectively delegitimised local political institutions” (Hoad, “African Intimacies: race, homosexuality and globalization”). These events created new forms of African agency and facilitated the implementation of colonial rule. A century later, the controversy arose around the “un-Africanness” of homosexuality, prompted perhaps with the 1995 event in Zimbabwe, where Mugabe expelled GALZ (Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe) from a Zimbabwe International Book Fair. Calling homosexuals “sodomists” [sic] and “sexual perverts” the President banned their exhibition.

He then went on to make his notorious pronouncement: “If dogs and pigs don’t do it, why must human beings? Can human beings be human beings if they do worse than pigs?” His statement was then widely echoed through similar pronouncements in Kenya (September 1999), Uganda (July 1998) and Namibia (1996).

President Mugabe’s abhorrent statement marks a strong intervention in this terrain, where imperial legacies and African/Caribbean/Asian/Pacific authenticities struggle to imagine the relationships between themselves as a normative and exclusive framework and “homosexuality”. Multiple exclusions enable the debate on the relationship often made between lesbian and gay identity to Western imperialism.

In the 1990s, leaders also began discovering the political advantages of promoting homophobia. Besides Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe who devoted whole speeches to denouncing homosexuals, Ugandan government officials regularly menace LGBTI groups; and in The Gambia, in 2008, the president vowed to “cut off the heads” of homosexuals. In South Africa the lack of political will to enforce laws legalising homosexuality also has ripple effects across the continent.

At the same time, institutional change offers signs of hope. Some NGOs and national human rights institutions (NHRIs) have slowly moved to address issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Independent rights groups in Kenya and members of the Kenyan National Human Rights Commission have spoken in defence of LGBTI people there. Also promising is the slow integration, in a few countries such as Uganda, of sexuality and sexual-rights issues into legal education.

The combination of an intensely repressive environment in families, communities, and public places, and antiquated laws on sexuality that are still enforced, keeps people underground—and sometimes kills those who emerge.

Post-independence democratic governments have shown deep resistance to any suggestion of repeal of sodomy laws. Indeed, the repeal of these draconian codes appears to be more controversial than their imposition. As a result organizations are unable to operate openly, jobs and homes lost, and police refuse to protect people against day-to-day violence. While such governments do not go around arresting people who are suspected to be gay, a climate of fear and intolerance prevails.

Reported religious values and fears of “open[ing] the door to homosexuality, bestiality, child abuse and every form of sexual perversion being enshrined in the highest law of this land,” justify essentially discriminatory legislation. Even where decriminalisation has occurred or is discussed, such as recently in the Delhi High Court Judgment in Naz Foundation v. Union of India, delivered on 2 July 2009, the argument for decriminalisation is often based formatively around health considerations, such as making HIV/AIDS treatment more accessible to LGBTI people. Whilst arguments can be raised as to why the universality of human rights should not be at the core of such arguments, the Delhi Judgment did go on to base its ratio on constitutional morality as opposed to popular or public morality, triggering an understandably euphoric and wonderful celebratory response from the LGBTI community, as well as from the wider activist community.

In Jamaica there have been some initial signs that it may soften its approach. Jamaica's ruling party elected the nation's first female Prime Minister, Portia Simpson Miller, a progressive, who gay-rights supporters hope will eventually move to decriminalise homosexuality. However, even if the repeal of sodomy laws is achieved there is still a range of other provisions, such as moral policing of public behaviour, which enables police abuse, as has occurred in the Dominican Republic. In such situations, the hard fact remains that sexual cleansing is just as real as ethnic cleansing. These kinds of "cleansings" are bound up in questions of purity and dominance. It is all about cleansing the "other" wherever it is found. And it is about making the "other", in this case, the homosexual person, the so-called enemy of the state, the family and the individual. Borders are of no consequence.

And, this was true two years ago at CHOGM 2007, where a Ugandan LGBTI group was forced out of the People’s Space at the People’s Forum and were beaten with sticks by plain-clothed police officers. Foreign visitors to CHOGM and the People’s Space, including committed Commonwealth activists who attempted to intervene, were also excluded from the Space. Now, some two years later, CHOGM 2009 is rapidly approaching and its theme, including that of “equitable partnership”, raises the question of partnership with whom and inclusive of whose concerns, particularly when a sector of Commonwealth civil society will at the very least be constructively excluded?

The positions of gay and lesbian Africans/Asians/Caribbeans (and to a certain extent Pacific Islanders) are not easily articulable in the confrontation, precisely because questions of sexuality are used to police both national and racial authenticity. And, this is exactly why there is a need to enforce the universality of human rights.

Homophobia and heterosexism are core aspects of patriarchy used through the control of sexuality, the assertion of identity, exclusion and the perpetuation of gender roles to gain retain and mobiles political power

Criminalising LGBTI people ensures they remain vulnerable as they seek to break out form their seclusion and invisibility. But outdated laws also repress those engaged in the defense of human rights globally as the laws are in direct contradiction with human rights law – particularly, the right to privacy, the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, and the right to freedom from discrimination. The presence of such laws also justifies hate and provides the legal basis for abusing one section and creates a culture of impunity via which all those promoting human rights or in dissent from the mainstreat are targeted.

LGBTI persons are a part of the Commonwealth, they are a part of each of the 53 Commonwealth nations. The Judiciary in all Commonwealth jurisdictions must follow the lead shown in the recent New Delhi High Court Judgment, and become institutions committed to the protection of those who “might be despised by a majoritarian logic” – by respecting the universality of human rights. Implicit within this stance must be the creation of protected space for LGBTI groups and their defenders if the concept of equitable partnerships is even to be considered a possibility within the Commonwealth, let alone the Commonwealth Peoples Forum.

November 26, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

The Extradition Treaty between Jamaica and the USA

CLAYTON MORGAN

As Justice Minister and Attorney General Senator Dorothy Lightbourne agonises over the request of the United States for the arrest and probable extradition of Christopher "Dudus" Coke to stand trial for various offences allegedly committed in the USA, she is probably also pondering whether now is the time to inform the Americans of our intention to renegotiate or even to abrogate the Extradition Treaty of 1983 between Jamaica and the USA.

CLAYTON MORGAN

There is a view that the treaty has proved itself to be inimical to the interests of Jamaica. Space denies me the opportunity to submit a detailed exposition of the negative effects of the treaty on our sovereignty and the due process of law. Nevertheless, some debate is necessary. It should be reviewed for the following reasons:

(1) The due process of law

The Foreign Narcotics King Pin Designation Act of 1995 which empowers the President of the United States to publicly identify persons who are identified by the Secretary of the Treasury as "significant foreign narcotics traffickers" and to administratively impose civil penalties of up to US$1.075 million upon such persons before the accused persons are tried in a court of law is against due process of law and the rules of natural justice. For the president thereafter to request a country where the accused person is a national to be arrested and brought before a court with a view to being extradited and tried for various offences alleged to have been committed in the USA gives rise to concern as to whether the accused will be able to obtain a fair trial in that country. This is despite a recent ruling by the Privy Council in a case from The Bahamas to the contrary.

Further, under the treaty the accused can be extradited without the opportunity to identify and challenge the statements of his accusers. The Requesting State needs to submit to the Requested State certified statements, depositions and other documents in support of the request for extradition, provided that "such evidence would justify the committal for trial of the accused person if the offence had been committed in the Requested State". Section 14 of our Extradition Act of 1991 (as amended) also confirms this procedure. This area of the process needs urgent review as it is a well-known tenet of our jurisprudence and constitution that an accused person should not be placed in jeopardy without first being given the opportunity to test the veracity of his accusers. Moreover, this procedure is a good example of the violation of that great principle of law which we daily strive to follow that "justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done".

The arguments against revealing the identity of the witnesses, for example, on the grounds of danger, are unacceptable, as adequate arrangements can be made to protect them. Indeed, The Mutual Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act 1995 (as amended) makes provision for the minister (the central authority) to make arrangements for inmates to travel to the USA to give evidence in a criminal matter if the USA requests their attendance at a hearing in connection with the proceedings and "there are reasonable grounds for believing that the inmate is capable of giving evidence relevant to the proceeding". In respect of persons other than inmates, the Act also makes provisions for the attendance of such persons to give evidence, however, with their consent. These are reciprocal arrangements, although Jamaica has rarely, if ever, taken advantage of these provisions.

LIGHTBOURNE... probably pondering whether we should renegotiate or abrogate the 1983 treaty

(2) Kidnapping and abduction

Jamaica should request a review of such a treaty with a country that has a history of officially employing the methods of kidnapping and abduction to bring accused persons before their courts. Jamaica has in recent times experienced this policy at the hands of the USA. The notorious case of Norris Barnes who was abducted from Montego Bay in the 1980s and taken to the USA where he was charged, convicted and sentenced is an example. Even where an extradition treaty exists between the USA and a country where a suspect is residing, the view of the USA government is that where an attempt to extradite the suspect would be futile, the government has a constitutional duty to bring the suspect before their court for trial. The fact that, for example, our minister of justice has the discretion under the treaty and companion legislation previously mentioned to deny a request to extradite, the USA may not claim that this discretionary power justifies inaction by their government. Another example where Jamaica experienced the effects of this policy was the "Storyteller" Morrison case in 1982 when Morrison, a Jamaican national, was accidentally extradited to the USA before he had exhausted his legal rights in Jamaica to appeal the order. The USA denied the request of the Jamaican government to return him to Jamaica for the completion of the due process requirements. Instead, he was tried and sentenced in the USA in a trial that at the time, and currently, raised several questions concerning the legal procedures in both countries. This case is significant as it gives rise to several jurisprudential matters, including the following question.

(3) Should Jamaica continue to recognise a treaty where the legal systems in both countries are significantly different?

There is a school of thought which postulates that Jamaica's legal system, despite its several shortcomings, enjoys a superior legal status when compared to that of the United States. Although the topic may be debatable, there are nevertheless some clear differences in their laws of evidence and criminal procedure which can significantly impact on the rights of accused persons not only in extradition, but generally in criminal proceedings. Also, the use of "illegally" obtained evidence and the trial of abducted persons are frequently allowed in the USA.

The incident at Abu Ghraib and the detention and trials of accused persons at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre speak eloquently for themselves. To his credit President Obama has undertaken that this unfortunate period of American history will never recur, at least not during his watch. The centre is to be closed next year and the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib have been brought to justice.

There is little doubt that the process of appointing judges in Jamaica and the quality of their judgement is more transparent and superior to those of their counterparts in the USA, although the USA has produced several outstanding jurists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Thurgood Marshall.

(4) Expenses and compensation

Article 17 of the treaty states that "expenses relating to the apprehension of the person sought and to subsequent proceedings shall be borne by the Requested State (Jamaica). Section 17 (2) states that "the Requested State shall also provide for the representations of the Requesting State in any proceedings arising in the Requested State or of a request for extradition". The only expense in this process that the Requesting State (USA) is liable to bear are "expenses related to the transportation of the person sought to the Requesting State".

The question is why should Jamaica, a poor country, in a request by the USA be compelled to bear this tremendous financial burden to extradite its nationals or even a fugitive to the USA? This burden is even more pronounced in consideration of the fact that Jamaica rarely, if ever, requests the USA to extradite a fugitive or a US national to Jamaica! Further, why should the director of public prosecutions be required to take from her small cadre of attorneys to prosecute these matters? Could not the Requesting State retain private counsel to obtain a fiat from the DPP to prosecute?

Article 17 (30) of the treaty states that "no pecuniary claim arising out of the arrest, detention, examination and surrender of the person sought under the terms of this treaty shall be made by the Requested State against the Requesting State." It is submitted that this is unfair to accused persons, some of whom may be successful in appealing their sentences on the grounds that they were extradited and convicted without regard to the due process of law existing in both countries.

Jamaica is legally bound to honour the treaty and any laws relating thereto until they are renegotiated or amended.

The problem the government faces is that any such request to the USA may be met with the reply "First comply, then complain."

Clayton Morgan is former president of the Cornwall Bar Association, vice president of the Jamaican Bar Association, a member of the General Legal Council, a member of the International Bar Association and an associate member of the American Bar Association.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

jamaicaobserver

bahamas Blog Bahamas

The Bahamas: Policing before Farm Road

The Ideal Type of Policing Programme Needed to Put a Dent in Crime in The Bahamas

Today, "we no longer even see the 'Police are our friends!' signs in our district."

BEFORE the Farm Road Project was started in June 2002 -- which later evolved into Urban Renewal -- active community policing was making itself felt. So much so that the Eastern Division Pacesetters, launched from the Elizabeth Estates Police Station, had already won the first international police award for The Bahamas.

The presentation --in which The Bahamas placed second in the competition -- was made by the Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police in 2001.

The Tribune was also presented with a plaque as the first partner to join the Pacesetters and introduce them to the public. Other newspapers and many other partners followed.

And so we can write with first hand knowledge about the Pacesetters and their programme to promote "The Police are my friends!" theme and take active door-to-door policing to a community. It was an initiative of which the whole community was aware and from which it saw positive results.

"The Police are my friends!" initiative was first introduced by ASP Shannondor Evans in 1998 in Freeport where he was Officer in Charge of the Eastern Division of the Grand Bahama District.

He was later transferred to Nassau and posted at the Eastern Division-- Elizabeth Estates Police Station. It was here that the Eastern Division Pacesetters was born. The object was to promote through many initiatives the idea that the police were the friends of the community. It was an effort to build a partnership between the police and the community.

Mr Evans had the ingredients of a successful programme, but he had to find a vehicle from which to launch it. One day he arrived at The Tribune and met with Godfrey Arthur, our advertising manager. Mr Evans, is an officer one has to take seriously. So fired with enthusiasm was he that he immediately caught Mr Arthur's attention. The idea was then brought to us and in no time The Tribune was on board with a weekly programme that lasted over a year. At first it started small with weekly announcements of meetings. Then it branched out into space given to introduce, with photographs, the various police officers in the programme and different members of the community who agreed that the police were indeed their friends. It caught the public's attention.

The object was to train the community to become aware of and accept the fact that 4,000 police officers, members of the Reserves and civilians could not police 300,000 people adequately, unless the people wanted to be policed and were an integral part of the project.

After spending four months training his officers, ASP Evans and his men took to the streets. They visited every home and business in the Eastern Division -- a total of 8,512 homes.

As a result of increased housebreaking complaints occurring in the eastern area, ASP Evans launched an initiative to ensure the presence of more police officers on the streets, through track roads and in the bushes. He planned to conduct the exercise one day a week for five weeks. Between 30 to 40 officers were deployed each week and their orders were to take an "aggressive approach toward preventing crimes."

His appeal for financial support was copied to leading residents in the eastern division. One of the names on the list was that of Dr Bernard Nottage -- and so no one could say this programme was politically motivated because those of all political persuasions cooperated.

ASP Evans had committed himself to providing lunch for the officers to prevent them leaving the area. He was, therefore, appealing to leading citizens in his division for "lunch" money. In his letter of appeal he announced that the late Roger Carron, The Tribune's director, had already provided lunch for the first day out. Others followed.

Mr Francis Cancino of the Amoury company recalls one weekend sitting with his family on his porch when up rolled Mr Evans and his team on bicycles. Mr Evans introduced himself and explained the team's mission. "He impressed me quite a bit," Mr Cancino will tell you today. "He gave out pamphlets with very good tips for the homeowner," Mr Cancino said. These were brochures with crime tips and a questionnaire. As a result Mr Cancino was also a supporter and helped with donations, among them computers. Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette and his wife, Robin, were also enthusiastic backers, giving of their time and finances. Mrs Symonette worked closely with the children, and provided gifts at Christmas.

Said Godfrey Arthur, who lives in the Eastern Division: "You could see the morale of the Elizabeth Estates station improve. After Mr Evans' transfer to the Police College we have seen an increase in petty theft and home invasions in our area. When he was in charge there was a policeman in your area every hour on the hour. He attended all the town meetings and was present for all the Crime Watch committee meetings. His team was responsible for the decrease in petty crime -- the man was on the job day and night. He made certain that his division was patrolled."

Today, said Mr Arthur, "we no longer even see the 'Police are our friends!' signs in our district."

However, this is the type of programme that each division needs if a dent is to be made in crime.

November 24, 2009

tribune242

Bahamas: Politicians 'highjacked' community policing

WE TALKED with several Bahamians this weekend about Urban Renewal and its effectiveness. There were many opinions, but all agreed that the programme was doomed from the beginning because it was bogged down in politics.

"You must remember," said one sarcastically, "what is now Urban Renewal started as the Farm Road project when a few policemen were strategically placed to impress the people. No Urban Renewal was on anyone's mind when that happened. The Farm Road project was solely to secure a seat for a politician."

In fact, said another Bahamian, community policing was "highjacked" by the politicians.

It was only when the police went into Farm Road and discovered such squalor in some of the homes that urban renewal was born and eventually the programme spread to other inner cities.

Instead of the police going into communities and discovering what was wrong and instructing the responsible government department to correct it, police found themselves directing home repairs, cleaning up garbage, and generally being involved in non-police work.

Another person did not see much change in the Urban Renewal programme when it came under the FNM-- other than the police being removed from school campuses.

The person felt that it was the parents' responsibility --not that of the police -- to make certain that their child did not go to school with a weapon.

"A lie is being foisted on the Bahamian people that Urban Renewal is dead. This is simply not true," said one police officer. "The programme has not been stopped, however, it has been changed."

He said the police had been providing the leadership.

However, when other organisations took their rightful place in the programme, the police stepped back and returned to their policing duties.

However, they continued to support the programme wherever their assistance was required.

The officer did not agree that the police should have ever been on the school campus. "It undermines the authority of the school principal and the school's staff," he said. However, although no police officer is stationed on the campus, an effective school programme with the police involved is still in place.

Each school has direct contact with the nearest police station and the police are on call whenever needed.

There are also programmes in place to give children police protection early in the morning when they arrive at school and in the afternoon when they are leaving. Police also supervise children who have been suspended from class. The police contact the parents, and have a programme to which the parents take their child for police supervision for as long as they have been banned from the classroom. These children are not wandering the streets. They are very much under police control.

But for politicians to say that Urban Renewal is dead or that protection is not being given to the schools, "is just intellectual dishonesty," was this officer's opinion.

However, another Bahamian saw what should have been a 24-hour community service being turned into a 9am to 5pm job for a civil servant. "They took the police out and flooded us with all these experts," he said. "In the social services you'd be surprised how many hands a request has to go through just to get one thing approved. In every department the public service is very weak."

What this country needs is dedicated community policing where police and people come together, united by a common goal.

Community policing was started long before politicians conjured up the controversial urban renewal programme. It was launched and managed by the police and in the areas where it was being developed, it was very successful.

We were intimately involved with the Nassau programme and gave considerable news space to a similar programme organised in Cat Island.

There was ASP Shannondor Evans, spearheading a programme from the police station in Elizabeth Estates, and Supt. Stephen Dean organising a student band and youth clubs in Cat Island. Both programmes were successful -- regardless of political affiliation residents were working with the police towards a common goal.

Cat Island, we were told, was a good example of how community programmes could make a difference. Faculty and staff at the Cat Island school commented on how the music programmes in particular had helped improve students' grades. It was thought that because of these programmes, students had become more focused.

Tomorrow we shall describe in more detail Mr Evans' successful programme in the Eastern division. This area included Prince Charles, Sea Breeze, Fox Hill Road and the Eastern Road.

There are probably many police men and women who are well versed in community policing. We know of two -- ASP Evans, and Superintendent Dean, who represents the Bahamas on the community policing committee of the International Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police. And we have heard of a third -- Supt. Carolyn Bowe.

These are the people whose skills and enthusiasm should be utilised in helping to coordinate and spread such programmes.

November 23, 2009

tribune242

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International