Editorial | Democracy, access, security

The security review of key government facilities ordered by the police chief, Dr Kevin Blake, is an appropriate response to last weekend’s attempted firebombing of Gordon House, home of Jamaica’s Parliament.

Happily, damage to the building was minimal: a bit of scorched floor and walls and damaged electrical fixtures at the entrance of the chambers. Hopefully, the attacker was a sole, and, perhaps, ill or unhinged, miscreant rather than a purposeful lone-wolf terrorist or a member of a vile, deviant pack. The seemingly unsophisticated nature of the assault appears to point more to the former than the latter.

However, this newspaper is surprised at the obviously lax security arrangements at Gordon House and other so-called scheduled government premises – those where public access can be limited and in the vicinity of which protests are proscribed – given the threat of global terrorism, notwithstanding the authorities’ wish to balance that concern and citizens’ right to engage with their leaders and public officials.

Fortuitously, Jamaica, despite having been the birthplace of an alleged recent global terrorist – who, on his return, reportedly attempted to continue his radicalisation enterprise from the island – has not itself been the victim of such activities. That notwithstanding, it is not the first time that Gordon House has faced a significant breach of security.

Indeed, in December 2014, the Parliament was broken into. The offices of the Speaker of the House and the president of the Senate were ransacked. Computers and other equipment were stolen.

At the time, Nigel Clarke, now the finance minister but then an opposition member of the Senate, rightly called for a strengthening of the security arrangements at the facility.

Tom Tavares-Finson, the current president of the Senate, but at the time the leader of government business in the upper chamber, commented: “... If the Government cannot protect the highest ‘court’ in the land, then how can we expect them to see to the security of all Jamaicans? There is no question that this is a significant failure on the part of the Government.”

On the other hand, government members attempted to downplay the gravity of the break-in. Better security was promised, and some, apparently, happened.

CAUGHT ON SECURITY CAMERAS

The perpetrator of last week’s attack, it has been reported, was caught on security cameras approaching, and running from, the building. Members of the police protective services unit, who were on duty at Parliament on Saturday night, were said to have smelt the smoke, checked, and discovered the fire.

But this leaves the question of whether there were stationary guards and beat patrols on the outside of Gordon House, in which event, an individual heading towards or running from the building late at night would have been deemed suspicious and might have been easily nabbed.

An explanation is necessary.

What, however, must not happen – even as serious and probing questions are asked – is the politicisation of this event. For there is a bigger issue here, than either side, the Government or the Opposition, attempting to score political points.

It is not known as yet who was behind this attack – a stupid prankster or someone harbouring deeply maligned intent. Yet, the tossing of a Molotov cocktail into Gordon House is a serious assault on a critical institution of Jamaica’s democracy, which, despite the stresses it has faced, has remained intact and in relatively good working order.

Indeed, in 1980, after an extremely bitter and divisive electoral campaign in which hundreds of people died, the party in office peacefully ceded power. In recent times, there have been two elections in which exceedingly slim majorities determined the outcomes. Power shifted without contention.

The bottom line is that there is nothing to gloat about in an attack on the institutional heartland of the island’s democracy. The mission is to ensure that it does not happen again and certainly not when either the House or the Senate is in session, thus with a real threat to constitutional order.

STAND OUT

That is the context in which the security review of scheduled premises ordered by Dr Blake is important. Jamaica House and the prime minister’s office stand out in this regard.

There remains the yet-to-be-explained reportedly slow and ineffectual response by police guards inside the premises to the predawn shooting of two young men under the porte cochère outside the formal Hope Road entrance to the premises. It was, apparently, a case of attempted robbery while the men repaired a car tyre. What if it were something even worse?

Just recently, visitors to the prime minister’s office were surprised at their ease of entry, via the Devon Road entrance, after a few cursory questions by a police guard. This is significant because of the proximity of the prime minister’s working area and the Cabinet’s meeting room to that entrance.

Entering the prime minister’s (PM) compound should not be impossible, but neither should it be that easy. The security officers should at least know the names of the visitors and be relatively certain that the vehicle in which they are travelling is not transporting materiel that is dangerous to the physical safety of the PM and the members of his government.