Sleight of hand or incompetence?The government’s Anti-Terrorism Bill

A statement by the Council for Liberal Democracy:

The Council for Liberal Democracy registers its appreciation of the recent exposure to the Supreme Court by one of its founder members, Nigel Hatch PC, of what on a charitable explanation was total confusion on the part of government with regard to a Bill it had placed on the Order Paper of Parliament earlier this month. The text of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act had profound implications with regard to the Rights of the people as laid down in the Constitution, and its provisions needed to be challenged in the Court. Fortunately, the NPP, which has been recently in the forefront of challenges to the legislative agenda of the government, intervened within the period in which the Constitution allows such appeals.

But by the time the case was taken up the government had backtracked, in what seems a very strange matter, arising perhaps from incompetence but also possibly evincing the sleight of hand which this government is prone to.

On October 11th the Acting Secretary General of Parliament wrote to the Attorney General, who had to respond to the petition, as follows –

The aforementioned Bill was placed on the Order Paper to Oe issued on 3’d October 2023 as informed by the Secretary to the Leader of the House, but before the commencement of Parliamentary sittings at 9.30 AM on 03.10.2023 the Secretary to Leader of the House by letter dated 03.10.2023 informed not to Present the Bill in Parliament and thus on 03.10.2023 the Bill was not moved for ‘First Reading’ in Parliament in terms of Standing Order 50 (1).

That was fair enough, but he then went on to say ‘Hence, I confirm that for all intents and purposes, the Bill is presently not placed on the Order Paper dated 03.10.2O23 for the purpose of Article 121 of the Constitution.’, on the basis of which the Attorney General wanted the petition dismissed.

This is a nonsensical position, since not moving the First Reading does not mean the Bill was withdrawn from the Order Paper. The real Secretary General of Parliament would do well to inquire into what prompted her underling to talk about ‘to all intents and purposes’, which obfuscates the issue. Had Mr Hatch not insisted on arguing the matter, when other counsel for petitioners seemed inclined to accept the Attorney General’s argument, and insisting on clarity on the issue, the dismissal of the petition could have led later to government taking up the Bill for First Reading and arguing that the period in which the challenge should have been made had lapsed.

This may seem a simply academic point, but we cannot forget how the challenge to the cut to interest on pension funds was obviated by a parliamentary motion after the challenge had been put to the Courts, nor how the Attorney General, with the weight of a private counsel appearing on behalf of the Prime Minister, opposed the challenge regarding the failure to hold Provincial Council elections. That challenge had been forwarded in March but it was only ruled on in August and, though leave to proceed was granted, the original date given has now been postponed.

Fortunately, following Mr Hatch arguing the point in Court, the Court has made it clear that further challenges can be entertained, and the Speaker declared on October 18th that the Anti-Terrorism Bill was no longer on the Order Paper. Why the Leader of the House did not instruct that it be withdrawn, and why the Acting Secretary General confused it not being taken up for First Reading with withdrawal from the Order Paper, needs explication, and it is to be hoped the Speaker and the Secretary General will check on these matters.

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance, and the Council registers its gratitude to Mr. Hatch, who first joined the Council when it opposed the 1982 referendum to postpone elections, and to the NPP for maintaining such vigilance. We also hope the Supreme Court will fulfil its obligations to the people and stand firm against government efforts to play games with the Rights of the people.