Opposition Member Hon Lorna G. Smith, OBE (AL) was the lone abstention in the vote for the motion for a second reading of the Police (Amendment) Bill in the House of Assembly on January 7, 2025. Photo: YouTube

Opposition Member Hon Myron V. Walwyn (R6) had expressed 'very serious concerns' with the proposed Police (Amendment) Bill 2024 getting three readings in one sitting of the House of Assembly. Photo: YouTube

The motion to amend the Order Paper and expedite the readings was moved by Premier and Minister of Finance, Dr the Honourable Natalio D. Wheatley (R7), and passed by a narrow vote of 7 to 5, with At-Large Representative Hon Lorna G. Smith, OBE abstaining.

The decision to fast-track the legislation sparked sharp debates among members, with Opposition representatives citing concerns about the bill’s impact on fundamental rights and the lack of public consultation.

Abstention Justified

During her presentation to the subsequent debate, Hon Smith explained her abstention. “I did not abstain because I didn't know whether I supported or did not support this bill. I abstained because, in its current form, I cannot support it. I am fully committed to the passage of this act in a form that this House can live with and that will be in the interest of the people of this country."

Further justifying her position, Hon Smith questioned the Territory’s capacity to implement the provisions of the bill effectively, particularly the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force’s (RVIPF) ability to execute covert operations, controlled deliveries, and manage witness statements as catered for in the amendments proposed.

Qualifying her stance further, Hon Smith pointed to the importance of achieving balance between law enforcement needs and individual rights, saying: "We must make sure that we have the capability and the capacity to carry out this bill. Special attention must be paid to individual rights, oversight, and accountability.”

Opposition concerns

Other Opposition members had earlier taken umbrage with the expedited process, calling for broader public consultation.

Honourable Myron V. Walwyn (R6) at the time of the motion being moved had voiced “very serious concerns” over the bill’s implications for privacy rights under the Constitutional Order of 2007.

According to Hon Walwyn, "...it is too serious a piece of legislation for us to 1, 2, 3 without the public not knowing all that is involved," as he described the process as an “absolute travesty.”

Hon Melvin M. Turnbull (R2) in echoing similar sentiments, urged caution, reminding that "this Police Act has come to this House in many different forms; We understand the nature of what we are dealing with, but we must be responsible in presenting this to the public."

In defending the decision to expedite the readings however, Premier Wheatley had pointed to the urgency of modernising the Territory’s crime-fighting capabilities, explaining that the bill addresses deficiencies identified in the fourth-round mutual evaluation report of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).