Peter Bunting | SOE extension not justified

There has been much debate on the issue of extending the three states of emergency (SOEs) currently in force in St James,

St Catherine North, and in parts of the Corporate Area. All three SOEs expire in January 2019, and the resolutions seeking extensions for a further three months did not receive the required two-thirds support in Parliament on December 11.

The Government's argument is essentially that the strategy of using SOEs as a crime-fighting tool is working, and should be given more time, as has been requested by the security forces.

But any strategy should pass two tests: i) Is it lawful? ii) Is it effective?

Our democracy is now more than just the power of the majority, as the Charter of Rights provides limits to ensure that the power of the majority doesn't degenerate into authoritarianism. In seeking to limit these rights granted in the charter, such as the right to liberty, the executive is subject to constraints that can be exercised by either the Parliament or the court.

With respect to the relevant declaration or extension of a SOE, the governor general and the Parliament, respectively, must be satisfied "that action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any person or body of persons of such a nature or on so extensive a scale as to be likely to endanger the public safety ...". What this describes is an armed rebellion, or at least a defined group taking or planning some serious, concerted action. For example, the circumstances orchestrat-ed by Christopher Coke and his associates in May 2010 clearly satisfied that standard.

The Government has to show, at the time of each extension, that the circumstances justify such a drastic step. The prime minister provided no evidence to satisfy this constitutional test on December 11.

Even if a high violent crime rate by itself was sufficient justification, how do St James and St Catherine warrant SOEs while simultaneously ignoring the parishes of Westmoreland and Hanover with much higher murder rates in 2018.

 

Is it effective?

 

We can now interrogate whether using SOEs as a national crime-fighting strategy is EFFECTIVE.

The JCF Periodic Serious and Violent Crimes Review, January 1, 2018 to December 8, 2018, shows that there were already 1,216 murders in Jamaica up to December 8, 2018. At this average daily rate, 2018 should finish with approximately 1,300 murders. Compare this with 2015, when the prime minister was promising that a vote for his party would allow you to sleep with windows and doors open. For that entire year, there were 1,207 murders.

In fact, for the five years following the Tivoli operation, murders stayed within a band of 1,100 per year +/- 10% without the declaration of a single SOE. These levels represented a new normal that was significantly below the 1,692 murders in 2009 (or the 1,644 in 2017). 

Look at some other measures of policing effectiveness:

1. Arrests down

2. Arrests with evidence down

3. Firearms and ammunition seized down 

Mass detentions, with only two per cent charged for serious crimes, is not an efficient or an effective use of our security forces. This was the policing approach under the Suppression of Crimes Act and, over the long term, was not only ineffective but generated hostility and resentment towards the State among detainees and their families.

Finally, the impact of the SOE on the national murder rate is experiencing diminishing returns. There was a clear downward trend between January and June in the number of murders occurring each month. However, that number has levelled off since July, and there is no further positive impact.

The data show that for the five years (2011 to 2015), there were substantially fewer murders occurring in Jamaica than in 2018, even though there were no SOEs in these years. It also shows that other measures of policing effectiveness have deteriorated in 2018. While the SOEs had a short-term positive impact on reducing murders nationally in the first half of 2018, there has been no further national reduction since July.

There is an argument that a society must be prepared to trade its values for its security or its security for its values. Our contemporary history rejects the validity of this trade-off.

Crime control efforts must be disciplined by the rule of law, due process, and respect for individual rights and human dignity. This approach is central to our democratic values.

- Peter Bunting is MP for Central Manchester and a former minister of national security. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.