Over two years ago, Prime Minister Davis and his "positive gang" of Cabinet members promised to make “a recommendation to the Commissioner of Police and Attorney General to see how [an Anti-Gang law] could come within our constitutional construct”. Despite what he thought may have constitutional implications with similar measures in one or two Caribbean countries, two years later, he and the Minister of National Security finally tabled and passed the Anti-Gang Bill, 2024. However, it has not come into effect because the Minister of National Security has prolonged Gazetting it - likely because of concerns with implementation.
Instead of delving into the Bill’s constitutionality, I wonder if one of the over 30 new criminal offences in the overly comprehensive Bill could be used to put these gang leaders and gang members behind bars. Yes, nemo est supra leges, that is, no one is above the law.
This week's #FiveCentsFridays claims that the PLP may be a gang under its own proposed law.
To solve this clever moot problem, one may use the black letter interpretation of the foreseeable Act (i.e., the ordinary meaning of the words ) to determine whether the PLP is a gang. Keep in mind that I am not privy to any amendments to the Bill. Given the definition of a gang set out in Clause 2, I do not see why PLP Parliamentarians, Senators, Cabinet members, or general PLP members cannot be persons formally organised that act alone or in concert with the aim of participating in gang-related activity (GRA).
First, the evidence to prove membership would be quite easy to find. Admissible evidence may range from pronouncements of “PLP tell I die” with signs, T-shirts, and of course the three fingers symbolising the crab mascot, to the “I got the bag” bribery activities during campaign or election days. Let’s not forget that PM Davis encouraged youth to be a part of a "positive gang". Yes, that happened but I digress.
Second, participating in GRA includes but is not limited to offences like fraud, extortion, stealing, bribery, and corruption. I highlight these types of offences under the Bill because, in many ways, the public generally feels that they are more of the day-to-day operations of public life in The Bahamas. Nevertheless, to prevent “claims of false, frivolous, or groundless allegations” consider Prime Minister Davis stealing in our pre-launch The New Ultra-Vires Government article. These are just the serious offences in the public’s preview but imagine what remains to be proven or brought to light.
Finally, in many ways the Bill merely increases the sentencing powers of the courts to roughly 25 years for an array of offences that may apply to political, religious, or other local community organisations depending on the circumstances of the case. Like the less lengthy version of the same single offence, I imagine it won’t be enforced at all and, if so, it won’t be applied fairly to all potential cases. With that said, I hope the Minister of National Security takes stock in reading this article as I ultimately choose to support the Act. I pray that he takes on the foreseeable challenge of applying it in all cases, even if against his own gang so that they are all locked up for good!
Comments