Whilst I agree that we must give the several crime fighting agencies the tools to detect, correct and prevent crime, it is also equally important that the legislation we put in place be fair to all so that justice must not only to be done but must be seen to be done. I have concerns with the following:
• Oversight: The amendment, as being argued by the state, is broadening the net on serious crimes inclusive of the current provision for drug related criminal activities. It is therefore a given that the checks and balances for the SSA agency must be rigid so as to avoid political influence, victimisation and nepotism. The agency must be able to carry out its mandate without fear or favour.
• Recruitment: The SSA director and the deputy’s appointments, must be apolitical and must be appointed by the President. All personnel recruited for the SSA agency must be screened and vetted so that their integrity is impeccable. Therefore all employees of this agency must be placed under the ambit of the Integrity and public life act so that they will not fall prey to unwanted external influences.
The argument put forward by one minister at last week post cabinet meeting was weak. The fact that the SSA act was in existence for the past 20 plus years and several administrations did not amend it is not an issue to gloat about. What it tells me is that the personnel responsible for legislation in our country is either incompetent or they take us for fools.
Concomitantly, the staffing of the SSA is critical to its success. It must not be done at the expense of the other crime fighting agencies ie TTPS, Defence Force, Customs, Coast Guard etc. These agencies must not be used as a “human resource bank for the SSA.” If this is the plan of the state, then the emasculation of these agencies and by extension the national security apparatus of the country continues. We will be worse off than where we started.
We must have a plan to staff the SSA without jeopardising the efficiencies and effectiveness of the other crime fighting state agencies
The prudent action for the state is to defer the bill to a joint select committee and have national consultations that will allow full participation by all citizens.
Doing the above will allow the state to develop a tool that will assist the crime fighting agencies while not impinging on citizen’s constitutional rights.
Paul Mohammed,
Orchard Gardens,
Chaguanas