As a previous Minister of National Security, with a certain knowledge in National Security systems, and not from the political party presently in office, I can provide an assessment of this claim without fear or favour, or any type of political bias to either side, with my sole mission being to give impartial advice based on what is best for the country.
One of the major avenues to improve our detection rate is via improved Intelligence gathering.
Our National Intelligence Agency is the SSA, yet we are one of the few nations in the world that has a Centralized Intelligence Agency that is earmarked solely to gather Intelligence from one specific serious crime, that being drug related offences.
The National Operations Centre (NOC) has the capacity to coordinate several Intelligence systems of serious crime, inclusive of terrorism, homicides and kidnappings, and being placed under SSA, with the sole purpose of only dealing with drug-related offences, would defeat the value of this system, which equates with what is known as COBR in UK (Cabinet Operations Briefing Room])The concept of a National intelligence Unit in other countries, allows Intelligence for ALL serious crimes, which can be found in CIA and MI6 as examples, and in these times with gang related activities, which includes homicides, as well as terrorism, it is mandatory that our main Intelligence Agency must be allowed the scope to be the central point for Intelligence for all serious crimes and not only drug related offences.
Hence by ascertaining our present security threats and best practice worldwide, it should be agreed by all that this expansion of the scope of SSA cannot be disputed, if we do intend to put the safety of our nation as priority over anything else.
That being the case, the next avenue is the perceived concern by a few that this expansion can be an opportunity for any sitting Administration to abuse this process for political gain rather than interception being made based on a concern of National Security.
However, this accusation is totally unfounded, as the Intercept of Communications Act trumps the operational directions of the SSA, prior to and after the Amendment being made. This Act was enacted based on what indeed could have taken place prior to this Act being drafted, as SIA was accused of doing just that, and intercepting persons who were not suspects to drug related offences. If such actions were committed prior to the Intercept of Communication Act in 2010, then it may have been unethical, but it was not illegal.
However, because of the Intercept of Communications Act being legislated, it has now prevented SSA from committing such actions.
This Amendment does not in any way increase the authority or powers of the SSA to intercept, but simply expands the scope of what is being intercepted.
Additionally, if there are concerns now with the Amendment because it would incorporate Intelligence of other serious crimes, then there would be equal merit for a similar concern prior to the Amendment, as the fear is being pumped that because of the Amendment being to incorporate all serious crimes, then an opposition member or a journalist can be targeted with false accusations of being involved in other serious crimes to have their devices intercepted. Based on this illogical presumption, then the same can be done prior to the SSA Amendment , by falsely accusing Opposition members or journalists of being involved in drug related offence, as an avenue to intercept their devices.
However, neither of these perceptions can be a reality based on the very Intercept of Communications Act, prior to, or after the proposed SSA Amendment.
There is the present misinformation being passed that if this SSA Amendment is made, then persons in SSA, can use this as an excuse to intercept anyone, based on justifying this interception using the rationale of intercepting because of the expansion of all serious crimes. This is totally untrue.
No one in SSA, before the Amendment or after, can do so, as to intercept, there must be a warrant that can only be made based on the request from the Chief of Defence Staff, Commissioner of Police or Director of SSA. This warrant would only be approved by a judge, after ensuring that enough information is given to confirm that the suspect is a person of interest based on a serious crime, and interception is required to assist in monitoring that individual, be it his/her involvement in homicides, kidnapping or even terrorist activities.
SSA then takes this warrant and it is used to intercept through one of the telecommunication providers, who would not allow interception unless they are provided with a warrant, so it is indeed a misconception that SSA can easily trigger off this interception on its own.
By this process alone, the clever red herring being used by some to state that journalists can be targeted due to this Amendment if they are “collecting information” or “researching issues’, is totally impossible, as such issues can never trigger a judge to issue a warrant to grant Interception. The triggering of a warrant is based on hard data to show that the person is involved in serious criminal activity, and not reporting or investigating a crime
I hope that this brings fact to the rumours being hurled about in relation to this Amendment, which can do nothing other than improve our Intelligence gathering capabilities, and the only ones who should fear this, are those who do have cocoa in the sun and are fearful that this window would now afford the Law Enforcement Agencies with the evidence to bring perpetrators of serious crime, such as homicides, planned terrorism, rape, and kidnapping to justice.
Gary Griffith,
Former Minister of National Security