President of the association, Mr. Nigel Hughes yesterday told reporters the GBA is concerned about some provisions of the Prevention of Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2002 and the Criminal Law (Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2002 and that these reservations were communicated to Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Mr. Doodnauth Singh on Monday.

The association is urging the Government to reconsider pursuing the passage of the proposed legislation in its current form when Parliament reconvenes tomorrow.

The other two Bills presented to Parliament are the Racial Hostility (Amendment) Bill 2002 No. 11/2002 and the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2002 - Bill No. 12/2002.

Among the proposed amendments, the Government is seeking to increase penalties for criminal offences and to broaden the scope of evidence that could be presented in Court, including video tapes and data embodied in various other types of equipment and monitoring of deportees with criminal records.

The amendments were circulated to various groups for comment and President Bharrat Jagdeo was optimistic that these additional pieces of legislation will have a positive effect in the fight against the current crime wave gripping the nation.

However, there have been some objections including those by the main Opposition People's National Congress Reform (PNC/R) which claims that the Bills are not intended to solve the crime and security crisis in the country.

Hughes, however, pointed out that the GBA is not objecting but is simply opposed to certain provisions in the legislation that it feels collide with the Constitution.

"Our objection is not based on the fact that Parliament has the right to pass legislation. Of course it does...but it has to do that within the confines of the Constitution and we are afraid that these two Acts are unconstitutional," he stated.

Hughes argued that in terms of the Prevention of Crimes (Amendment) Bill, it gives the Minister designated under that Act, judicial and legislative powers which he cannot properly exercise constitutionally. He said that for example the Bill allows the Minister to make any order he deems necessary after an ex parte application to the Court by the Commissioner of Police.

In other words, the Minister can determine whether a person can be detained at a Police station or the prisons and is given this power after an ex parte application by the Commissioner of Police.

"This is just not acceptable," Hughes declared noting that whoever is subject to a deportation order can be detained literally "at the pleasure of the Minister" after the ex parte application by the Commissioner to the High Court.

"This violently collides with the Constitution. It is a usurpation of the judicial functions by the Minister and for those reasons we have objections to it," he stated.

In regards to the Criminal Law Offences Bill, he said it also provides challenges to the freedom enjoyed under the Constitution.

The provisions of this Bill under Section 309 A (1) (b) state that whoever commits a terrorist act commits an offence and shall (i) if such offence has resulted in death of any person, be punishable with a fine of $1.5M together with death.

Hughes contended that this provision also constitutes the usurpation of judicial powers by the legislature and that sentencing is in the exclusive province of the judiciary and not the legislature or the executive.

He said that what is of greater concern to them is that the death penalty is now available for a manslaughter sentence and even lesser offences.