40
This country’s lawyers are raising deep concerns about the planned Anti-Corruption and Anti-Terrorism Agency (ACATA) Bill, creating the supra ACATA to investigate corruption and malfeasance in Barbados.
In a report outlining its comments on the proposed law, Barbados Bar Association president Rosalind Smith Millar QC, made it clear that the Bar was in full support of a zero-tolerance approach to corruption and
terrorism, if the island was to “maintain its international standing as a lawabiding jurisdiction and a safe place to do business”.
At the same time, Smith Millar said the zero-tolerance approach must pervade the entire society “from top to bottom”.
She insisted the new agency would only be taken seriously “if it is accompanied by a modern Anti-Corruption Act to complement the Proceeds
and Instrumentalities of Crime Act and other relevant legislation”.
The Bar expressed deep concern about the appointment of a Director General of the ACATA, questioning the Prime Minister’s lead role in appointing the person to that position and the immense power which the holder of the office would wield.
“One of the most striking aspects of ACATA is the breadth of the Agency’s mandate, which includes investigation of alleged or suspected acts involving corruption and terrorism, and prosecuting offences relating to corruption and terrorism,” the Bar president outlined.
Noting that the new investigative agency will act under Ministerial direction, the Bar questioned which Minister will be directing the agency.
“The Director General is to be appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, after consultation with Leader of Opposition (Section 14).
For many years, the Barbados Bar Association agitated for transparency in the appointment of Judges, and finally this was achieved a very few short years ago by the creation of a committee to receive and review applications resulting from advertisement of the post, and to make recommendations,”
Smith Millar noted.
However, lawyers are now greatly concerned about the administration’s move to revert “to the patently non-transparent system described in the ACAT Bill”.
In a series of questions, the Bar commented: “Why are we not providing for a more transparent system of appointment of the Director General (DG) and members of the Oversight Committee?
“Why is there no provision for advertisement of the post of DG, selection of the DG by a Committee of Parliament, approval of the selection by Parliament, and then recommendation to the Governor General?
“Why are we not, as suggested by the Hon. George Payne QC MP, allowing Parliament to have a say in the appointment of the DG and the Oversight Committee?
“How can persons chosen by the Prime Minister oversee and investigate a person also chosen by the Prime Minister?”
Also, on the question of transparency, the Bar queried: “Under Section 21, the DG is to appoint staff – investigators, prosecutors, and ad hoc technical service providers from time to time: that is a lot of autonomy to give to an appointee who is answerable only to people chosen by the same person who chose him.”
Moreover, attorneys expressed doubt about the level of protection afforded whistleblowers. They also alerted to the absence of legislation to prosecute people who tip off targets about investigations against them, as is contained in the anti-money laundering legislation.
Moreover, Smith Millar noted that the DG and others designated by him had the full powers, privileges, and immunities as police officers. However, the Bar questioned what restrictions were to be applied to the Agency.
“Why are banks (under Section 9(11) not required to disclose the name and address of their customers, when lawyers are required to disclose clients’ names and addresses?”
And in one of its harshest comments, the Bar argued that without subsidiary rules and regulations for which provisions are made in the Bill “and in the absence of the promised additional legislation, it is a little difficult to see clearly how the entire system will work”. (IMC1)
