Nearly nine months after it unveiled a draft witness protection bill, the government will hold a consultation on it amid concerns that it has been too slow to act in this matter.
According to an advertisement in yesterday’s Stabroek News, the consultation is set for Monday, 10th October at the Pegasus Hotel making it unlikely that the bill will be taken to Parliament immediately. A consultation will also be held at the same time on the Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower) Bill 2016.
Urgency now attends the witness protection bill as the government has come under pressure over the absence of charges from the dozens of audits of state enterprises it commissioned last year.
Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan said earlier this month that “scared to death” witnesses are stalling police action on the recommendations of criminal charges and investigations made in several of the forensic audits and had expressed hope that this will change with the passage of witness protection legislation. The minister’s statement has raised the question as to why the government has taken so long to proceed with the witness protection bill.
In November last year, then Minister of Governance Raphael Trotman had announced that Cabinet had given the nod for the bill to be submitted to the National Assembly.
Under the bill, offences which may give rise to protection under the Witness Protection Programme include murder, manslaughter, treason, sedition, piracy or hijacking, possession or use of firearms and ammunition with intent to injure, possession or use of firearms in furtherance of any criminal offence, aggravated assault, shooting or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, robbery, robbery with aggravation, armed robbery, arson, any sexual offence, any drug trafficking offence, kidnapping, any money laundering offence, offences under the Criminal Law (Offences) Act (Cap. 8:01), any domestic violence offence and any trafficking in person offence. According to the Explanatory Memoran-dum, Part II of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Witness Protection Programme and three agencies – an Administra-tive Centre, an Investigative Agency and a Protective Agency – to administer the Programme. It lays out the functions of the three agencies and their interdependence on each other for the effective and proper administration of the Programme.
It requires the disclosure of certain information to the Administrative Centre by the prospective participant, the prospective participant’s application to be in the prescribed form, that the participant understands the implications of being included in the Programme and that he understands and signs the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
In relation to criminal matters, the Director of Public Prosecutions, where satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, shall prepare and submit the application in the prescribed form.
Part III identifies the agency that will prepare the MOU, the persons who will be eligible to sign which is either the prospective participant or a guardian, and countersign (the person authorised by the President for the purpose), and how the MOU may be varied.
Part IV provides for a register of participants which shall contain detailed information in respect of each participant. It makes mandatory that all ancillary documents – the original of each MOU, new identities issued under the Programme, the original of each approval granted by the Centre, identity documents returned to the Centre – and the register shall be kept by the Centre.
This Part further gives access to these documents and the register, only to the Centre. However, in the interest of the due administration of justice, the Centre may allow another approved authority to have access to the ancillary documents and the register. Where the Centre allows another approved authority access, the Centre shall notify the approved authorities of such access.
The bill identifies an approved authority as the President, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Administrative Centre, the Commissioner of Police or any other person or body that the President may, from time to time, designate as an approved authority;
Part V provides for the protection of the participant and in instances where the participant has been provided with a new identity he must obtain written approval from the Administrative Centre before he discloses his former identity. Further, protection and assistance under the Programme may be terminated by the participant or the Centre and where the Centre considers it appropriate, it may restore the participant’s former identity.
It also provides that the participant has 28 days after receiving notification from the Centre, in regard to either the termination of protection or assistance or both or where there is a decision to restore the participant’s former identity, to apply to the President for a review of the decision and the President shall allow him a reasonable opportunity to state his case.
Part VI makes it an offence, for a person without lawful authority, a person who has been a participant or a person who has undergone assessment for inclusion in the Programme, to disclose any information about the Programme. It is also an offence for a person to offer a bribe to a person employed in the administration of this Act or being a person employed in the administration of this Act, to accept a bribe.
According to the draft Bill, persons committing these offences are liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1 million and to imprisonment for 10 years.
