Jamaicans, foreigners are not comparable under the NIDS law, argues attorney general
Published:Tuesday | October 23, 2018 | 12:00 AMCorey Robinson/Staff Reporter
Attorney General Marlene Malahoo-Forte yesterday scored a day-late come-back when she argued that Jamaicans would not be discriminated against when accessing goods and services through the National Identification System (NIDS).
Malahoo-Forte, who on Monday was befuddled by scenarios put to her about Jamaicans without NIDS being sidetracked in favour of foreigners with lesser identification, argued that the groups were not comparable, as foreigners would be outside the scope of the NIDS Act.
Foreigners would thus be allowed to use other forms of identification to access goods and services locally, she argued, citing previous jurisprudence that were accepted to some degree by the judges.
The come-back, however, was short-lived as the attorney general continued to struggle for responses in relation to the NIDS Act, which seemed riddled with unironed kinks.
The People's National Party (PNP) has taken the government to court to challenge the NIDS Act.
As the hearing continued in the Supreme Court yesterday, Malahoo-Forte responded to claims by the PNP that the NIDS Act was unconstitutional, as it violated the rights to privacy, the right to equitable and humane treatment, the right to due process, the right to protect property, and the right not to participate in the system.
In some instances, she said the opposition had no grounds nor evidence to support its claims, while in others the judges were relentless in their questions about apparent breaches.
WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO STATEMENTS
"Statements by parliamentarians are meaningless to me. I look at the statute and the statute alone. What people say in Parliament has no bearing; it is what the governor general signs. We don't pay attention to statements," retorted chief justice Bryan Sykes, when Malahoo-Forte attempted to defend one of the claims based on the NIDS objectives as discussed by Prime Minister Andrew Holness.
The judges took issue with the fact that while persons may not be required to provide samples of their DNA for NIDS, they may be asked to state their blood type, which may be verified by blood samples - which by extent contains DNA information.
They also found issue with persons being mandated to register for the NIDS, despite their right to oppose the legislation, and the $100,000 sanction as is set out by the Act.
The judges questioned whether the sanctions were proportional to the objectives of the NIDS.
"If you make something compulsory you have to enforce it, my lord," said Malahoo-Forte.
"So once the executive say it is right then everyone else must say so? Nothing is here to show that the problem is so great that you have to criminalise someone to comply. There is no data here," said Sykes, one of three judges presiding over the matter.