By RASHAD ROLLE 

Tribune News Editor 

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

ELECTED officials passed two bills yesterday that Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis described as the most aggressive and far-reaching accountability and anti-corruption reforms in the country’s history.

His administration accelerated the bills after two high-profile police scandals shook the public’s trust in law enforcement last year: a voice note scandal purporting to capture a quid pro quo arrangement involving a senior police officer and a US federal indictment alleging that some officers helped facilitate cocaine smuggling into the United States.

While the Davis administration emphasised the broad scope of a new agency under the Independent Commission of Investigations Bill, which would investigate serious complaints involving law enforcement and certain public officials, opposition members argued that the reforms do not go far enough.

They noted that the Independent Commission of Investigations would not be empowered to enforce a code of conduct or address public officials who fail to disclose their assets and liabilities promptly and accurately.

They questioned whether the commission, with its sweeping mandate, could effectively carry out its duties under the proposed structure without facing significant backlogs.

They said the body’s independence is undermined by the prime minister’s unfettered authority to appoint its commissioners.

Citing the Davis administration’s history of failing to properly fund other good governance initiatives, such as the Freedom of Information Unit, opposition members also expressed doubts about when the new body would become fully operational.

Progressive Liberal Party legislators, in turn, questioned the opposition’s commitment to accountability, pointing out that the Minnis administration had tabled at least one similar bill –– the Integrity Commission Bill, 2017 –– but failed to debate or pass it.

The Independent Commission of Investigations would investigate serious complaints involving security forces, and public officials required to comply with the Public Disclosures Act.

The commission could summon witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and conduct hearings. It would submit reports to Parliament and refer cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) when criminal charges are warranted. The DPP will then determine whether to pursue charges and inform Parliament and relevant agencies accordingly.

The commission would comprise independent investigators, with members having the legal authority to conduct inquiries and issue recommendations. After consultation with the opposition leader, the prime minister would choose commissioners, and they will have immunity from legal action for duties performed under the act. The law also includes provisions to protect witnesses and individuals assisting the commission.

Meanwhile, the Protected Disclosures Bill 2025 seeks to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. It outlines the process for making disclosures, specifies the roles of a designated authority responsible for overseeing investigations, and establishes protections for people who report wrongdoing in good faith.

The bill prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who make protected disclosures, offering them protection against dismissal, demotion, or other unfair treatment. It also includes severe penalties for obstructing the reporting process, with fines and imprisonment for those found guilty of retaliation or misconduct.

The designated authority is granted powers to investigate allegations, hold hearings, and collaborate with law enforcement if necessary, ensuring transparency and accountability. The bill also requires the authority to publish annual reports and submit them to Parliament for public scrutiny.

During yesterday’s debate, Mr Davis noted that last year, “very serious criminal allegations were made against multiple members of our uniformed forces,” people who are supposed to protect the public.

He said “no country can lift people out of poverty or build communities in which people thrive” if citizens don’t trust those who protect them.

“How,” he added, “can we trust a system when those accused of wrongdoing are the only ones with the power to investigate that wrongdoing?”

“We aren’t here to protect or prolong the status quo.”

Nonetheless, East Grand Bahama MP Kwasi Thompson contrasted the Davis administration’s approach to what Jamaica has done, noting that Jamaica has an Independent Commission of Investigations that applies to security forces and an Integrity Commission that addresses anti-corruption, public disclosures and a code of conduct for public officials.

“What we have here today is a watered-down version of both of those combined in one,” he said.

Earlier, Mr Davis said creating two separate bodies would have been inefficient “in a small nation like ours.”

“This is not a diluted solution,” he said. “This is a stronger, more effective one.”

For his part, FNM leader Michael Pintard said the bills reflect the “inordinate amount of influence” the prime minister has to make recommendations to the Governor General for appointments to various positions, insisting that leaders “can stack the deck” for political advantage.

Former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis raised concerns about the broad scope of the commission, questioning whether the proposed structure is large enough to handle the volume of complaints it is expected to oversee. He noted that the commission will have jurisdiction over multiple security forces and a wide range of public officials, which could lead to significant delays in investigations due to the sheer number of cases. With only three commissioners proposed, he warned that the backlog already seen in the criminal justice system could be replicated within this new body.

He questioned how the commission would interact with existing complaint mechanisms within law enforcement and government agencies. The legislation suggests that once the commission is established, it will take over all major investigations, removing the ability of agencies to conduct internal inquiries. Dr Minnis argued that this shift could overwhelm the commission and slow down the resolution of cases.

He also pointed out that the bill does not override the constitutional authority of the Commissioner of Police, meaning the police will still have to investigate crimes involving their officers, potentially leading to conflicts in jurisdiction.

He also emphasised the lack of transparency in the bill’s provisions regarding public reporting. He took issue with a clause that prevents press releases from disclosing whether the commission recommended criminal charges to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said the public has a right to know the full outcome of investigations and called for an amendment to ensure this information is made public.

Despite the opposition’s criticism, PLP MPs emphasised that the FNM missed opportunities to change the status quo. Central and South Eleuthera MP noted that an Integrity Commission Bill was among the first the Minnis administration tabled.

“They didn’t have the guts, the testicular fortitude to even get it to this point,” he said. “It ain’ what they say, it’s what they do.”