Parliament passed controversial anti-crime legislation after a four and a half hour debate yesterday, punctuated by measured criticism from two lone opposition members of the house. Kick-starting the afternoon's proceedings, Home Affairs Minister, Ronald Gajraj, saw the bills' enactment as necessary in combating an escalating crime wave which he said was taken to new lows by the recent indiscriminate killings on Wednesday evening in which five persons in two separate incidents were brutally murdered.
Reading from a prepared statement in response to Wednesday evening's shootings, the minister said, "the government has not shirked its responsibility to meet the challenges in the security domain."
He said a range of measures had been adopted to deal with the developments and challenges including inputs of additional funds, training and re-training and procurement of equipment to fight the scourge.
The creation of a specific terrorist act, Gajraj said, turning his attention to the Criminal Laws (Offences) (Amendment) Bill, was solely intended to serve as a deterrent to those who wanted to destroy property and cause mayhem.
He said the measures, which have already been adopted in several well known democracies around the world including India from where the measures were in fact copied, will not infringe on the enshrined freedoms of citizens, already guaranteed in the constitution.
AP/WPA Member, Sheila Holder one of two opposition members present at the sitting, said the measure was exceedingly controversial and based on the advice of an eminent jurist, she saw it as a retrograde act.
She also bemoaned the lack of consultation with the parliamentary opposition, among other groups, even though the government claimed to be promoting democracy.
But her sentiments were contradicted by Attorney General Doodnauth Singh who disclosed that government had met opposition PNC/R Chief Whip, Lance Carberry on Tuesday to examine their concerns. This, he said, was done in the interest of consultation albeit at the eleventh hour. He further challenged any one to show legal authority to say where the measure contravened the existing constitutional provisions.
ROAR Leader, Ravi Dev, while in principle agreeing with the measures, said more time should have been spent on fleshing out areas that may be of concern.
He was of the belief that instead of hurrying to pass the measures, government should have sent them to parliamentary committee to be examined in detail.