Safeguard rights - Don't reverse the burden of proof

We can't recall the last time legislators, especially those in the Lower House, used a fine-tooth comb to examine a bill that has been put before them.

Indeed, this column has criticised legislators for blindly passing bills. We have always been convinced that most legislators are unaware of the clauses in many bills they have voted to become law.

Last week, however, faced with the Special Prosecutor Bill, which could greatly affect corrupt public servants, members of the House of Representatives went to work like we have never seen them before. Tuesday's marathon sitting of the House - from 10 a.m. until sunset - was the fourth time the House of Representatives considered the bill.

After completing 17 of 87 clauses, Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who is piloting the bill, conceded it would fall off the Order Paper as, although progress had been made, it was very unlikely the bill would pass. But it is not the case that the Opposition stood in the way of the bill and blocked it. Instead, for a change, parliamentarians were meticulously combing through a bill. They were not prepared to allow the passage of a bad law which ultimately could hit them where it hurts.

The stridency and diligence with which the legislators in the House approached the bill was breathtaking and commendable. The likes of Clive Mullings, Ronald Thwaites, Anthony Hylton, Peter Bunting, Dr Peter Phillips, Dr Omar Davies, Golding, Robert Pickersgill and Andrew Holness gave a lesson in how legislators should approach their task.

contentious provision

We are most impressed with Thwaites and Mullings, who identified and sought to uproot a contentious and offensive provision in the bill. We refer to the proposal to force public officials to prove property suspected to be held in trust is not theirs. Rightfully, Thwaites and Mullings have argued that the clause is reversing the burden of proof and is, therefore, unfair.

Prime Minister Golding and Dr Phillips have argued that provision is necessary, as there are persons who have so perfected the art of corruption that the State would need additional help in tracking them down. They have also pointed to acts such as the Proceeds of Crime Act which, they say, also reverses the burden of proof.

"That's the only way that we are going to be able to get to people who have ventured or demonstrated the expertise to undermine systems," Golding said.

don't infringe on rights

We find it unfortunate that legislators like Golding and Phillips seem not to recognise that it is the State which has a duty to prove its case, not the accused. We urge these two seasoned and senior legislators to return to the provisions of the Charter of Rights which has just been passed by the Parliament. Just so they can recall, the charter gives every person charged with an offence the right to remain silent and protect himself/herself from self-incrimination.

Prime Minister Golding says the failure of Parliament to pass the bill will affect funding drawdowns from international organisations. He told legislators the previous government signed an agreement which makes the tough anti-corruption laws necessary. We wonder what are the terms and conditions of that arrangement.

The Gavel is emphatic in its position that Parliament shall pass no laws which will infringe on the constitutional rights of any citizen. For this reason, we urge Golding to establish a task force to identify those laws in which the burden of proof has been reversed and the criminal law is turned upside down and start the process of amending them.

In the meantime, the Special Prosecutor Bill, which appears to be cut-and-paste drafting, should be withdrawn when Parliament reopens, cured of its many maladies and then retabled.

Email feedback to thegavel@gleanerjm.com.