The National Assembly yesterday passed a bill to allow police to use “less-lethal weapons,” including pepper spray and tasers, after the removal of a controversial provision to empower the force to collect DNA from persons taken into custody.
The removal of the controversial clause from the Police (Amendment) Bill resulted in the bill winning the support of the main opposition APNU+AFC coalition.
“…After due consideration and perhaps some criticisms too, at this time this resort is not necessary. So I also want to delete this clause…,” Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn, in whose name the bill was tabled, told the House at the opening of the debate on the bill.
After the bill was tabled in June, critics, including the Guyana Bar Association, had warned that the provision for DNA collection could have resulted in the infringement of a person’s constitutional rights,
The amended bill, once enacted, would empower the members of the Guyana Police Force to carry less-lethal weapons in the execution of their duties. Such weapons are defined to include: (a) nightsticks, batons and clubs; (b) chemical irritants, including a pepper spray and tear gas; (c) conducted electrical weapons, including a taser or stun gun; (d) kinetic impact projectiles, including rubber bullets; or (e) a water cannon.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum for the bill, “The purpose of this amendment is to … provide the type of less-lethal weapons that may be issued to the Police Force for use in discharge of their functions under the Act. The use of arms facilitates less-lethal confrontational measures by law enforcement officers in an effort to reduce fatalities.”
Benn, in his address to the House, stressed that it was important that the police force be equipped with tools that will enable ranks to execute their jobs without excessive or deadly force.
He acknowledged instances where scuffles between agitated civilians and lawmen led to the use of lethal force to quell the situation just because the civilian was resisting arrest.
With such situations in mind, Benn said, “We want to avoid the result of having to go to the use of firearms. We want to be able to go through a staged response in respect of the use of force by our police.”
“I think each one of us should welcome our ability to move in a stage towards a position where we can bring calm to a situation, where we can have arrests which are less tendentious…” he further said. “I think everyone should take the position that these amendments were long in coming, and should be properly placed in the Police Act so that any resort which should have been made would be properly identified in law,” he added.
Evolution
The contentious clause empowered police to collect “deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) information” from persons taken into custody. Under the proposed amendment, there was no requirement that the DNA be relevant to the investigation of the crime or offence for which the individual is detained. “The effect of this amendment is that in addition to measurements, photographs and fingerprint impressions, a member of the Force can take and record DNA information of a person in lawful custody for the purpose of identification,” the explanatory memorandum for the bill had stated.
The Bar Association subsequently criticised the amendment as presented, while warning that it could result in the gross erosion and infringement of a person’s constitutional rights. Article 143 of the constitution protects against the search of a person without his/her consent or an Order of the Court. “The Bar Association therefore finds it wholly unacceptable that the power to obtain ‘DNA’ from the body, would be placed in the hands of a member of the Police Force without oversight and sufficient safeguards”, a statement from the legal practitioners’ body said.
‘DNA’ evidence is a useful tool in proving the guilt or innocence of an accused. However, the obtaining of that information merely on arrest, without consent or Order of Court, is alarming and dangerous. Generally, ‘DNA’ can only be obtained from the body by invasive means, which also raises concerns of state sanctioned assault, if done without consent,” it added, while also criticising the government for the lack of consultation on the various proposed amendments.
Throwing his support behind the amendments, former Minister of Public Security and now opposition member Khemraj Ramjattan welcomed the deletion of the DNA clause.
“Quite frankly, I did not believe at all that the integrity of the collection and the preservation of DNA samples would have been to that high quality that I think that we should make it, so that is an important deletion,” Ramjattan said as he rose to speak in favour of the bill.
He stated that even as amendments are being made, there must be an evolution of behaviour by ranks in the force. The former minister called on Benn to ensure that the new piece of legislation is accompanied by more professionalism.
Ramjattan alluded to the fatal shooting of Dartmouth, Essequibo businessman Orin Boston by police during a purported search operation.
“We saw what happened to Orin Boston. Orin Boston, in his room, with his wife, and they gone in there with big guns, they didn’t take any other non-lethal or even ask CID detectives at Suddie, arrest that man. He was not a known criminal,” he said.
Fellow APNU+AFC Member and Shadow Minister of Home Affairs Geeta Chandan-Edmond also welcomed the deletion of the controversial DNA clause. “I am heartened that the controversial clause was removed and that the government has listened to the cries and calls of the wider population,” she said.
She, however, objected to the inclusion of electrical weapons, such as tasers, which she noted have been responsible for deaths globally, and chemical irritants, which she said have caused permanent damage to the bodies of individuals when used. On this note, she posited that permitting the use of such weapons will further taint the image of the Guyana Police Force.
“Mr. Speaker, when one considers that the Guyana Police Force has already been tainted as a result of their irresponsible use of force there must be exhaustive consideration of this redefinition of non-lethal weapons to be used by members of the Guyana Police Force and law enforcement officers in general,” she pleaded.
Member of Parliament Dawn Hastings, who was the first opposition member to support the bill, agreed with Benn that the less lethal weapons are needed to minimise the impacts of heated confrontations between police and civilians.
