The Interception of Communications Bill has two main purposes: the first is to ensure that the police have a critical crime-fighting tool in their arsenal, by modernizing the law that allows the police to intercept the planning and execution of serious crimes, including drug and gun trafficking, cybercrimes and other criminal activities; and the second is to add a new privacy protection for Bahamian citizens, so that from now on, independent judicial review would be required before a citizen’s communications could be monitored or intercepted.

In my consultations with various individuals and organizations in civil society, it has been my experience that the more people learn about the legislation, the more they support it. That is because all Bahamians who are concerned about crime and security want to ensure that our police have a legal path to intercepting the communications of criminals. They also understand that the Listening Devices Act, first passed 45 years ago, long before electronic and digital communications became commonplace, did not keep pace with modern technology.

In addition, contrary to many of the concerns that have been raised, the legislation adds, rather than removes, protection for private citizens. It does so by adding new protective steps – a judge in the Supreme Court must grant the police permission to intercept any citizen’s communications, if the judge finds that reasonable suspicion is justified and the Supreme Court sets a time limit for the duration of the interception. Any extension beyond that time limit must be granted by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court can also give instructions as to how and when those records should be destroyed when the threat is removed. These new protective steps safeguard citizen privacy in a way that meets concerns raised in a recent Privy Council case on the Listening Devices Act, which specifically recommended that consideration be given to providing greater protections to Bahamian citizens.

Unfortunately, in this political season, most of the public discussion about the legislation has become completely partisan. Overheated and irresponsible accusations or alternative facts do nothing to further public education or engagement. In too many instances, the debate has been neither measured nor informed.

Because we are concerned that the public has been misled very substantially about the content of this legislation, we have decided to add a period of public consultation, which will be led by the Office of the Attorney-General. During this period, we will work with civil society to ensure that Bahamians will have an opportunity to learn about and review the legislation, have their questions answered and their concerns addressed.

Bahamas Information Services