The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

ONCE the Interceptions of Communications Bill is passed in Parliament, the country will be fulfilling international obligations, attorney Wayne Munroe, QC, told The Tribune.

The legislation, tabled in the House of Assembly on the evening of February 8, has ignited a debate over privacy. Opponents argue that it will be used as a political tool to spy on Bahamians while proponents insist it will aid the country in the fight against crime.

“If the US determined there was a terrorist target and they wanted to intercept the communication, they would come and we have to have provisions in law to assist them,” Mr Munroe said. “They won’t take kindly to us not being able to assist them in criminal matters.”

“All these people jumping up and down complaining about breach of rights all fail to understand where this is coming from. Police can now do same thing to intercept calls and the like under the Listening Devices Act. It could happen now.”

Mr Munroe said under the Listening Devices Act, police could also intercept digital material, even though such material is not specifically mentioned in the Act.

“The digital element is not new,” he said. “When you define ‘conversation’ as seen in the Listening Devices Act, that’s broad enough to encompass digital data in my view. The only thing people should focus on is whether the protections in this bill are sufficient and they are 100 per cent better than the ones in the Listening Devices Act. Under that Act, the AG could sign off and didn’t have to go to court. Under this bill they have to go to court. We have seen that the Supreme Court does not do what the government wants.”

Nonetheless, Mr Munroe acknowledged that the bar that must be met for Supreme Court justices to sign off on an interception warrant is low.

“Warrants are based on reasonable suspicion,” he said. “It’s not about being guilty. The purpose of investigation is to determine whether your suspicion is founded or not founded. Under the old law we never knew how much authorisation the attorney general gave. But under this bill, the attorney general has to report as to how many warrants were sought, how many were granted. There’s parliamentary oversight. I’m disappointed in the discussion I’ve seen on this bill.”

The Interception of Communications Bill would repeal the Listening Devices Act if passed.