Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

On May 27, 2020, Minister of Justice the Honourable Delroy Chuck tabled a motion in Parliament regarding amendments to the INDECOM Act, 2010. This action follows a recent ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – Jamaica’s highest court of appeal – on whether the INDECOM Act empowers the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) to arrest, charge, and prosecute members of the security forces who commit offences while serving in an official capacity.

The Court decided that the INDECOM Act, as presently worded, empowers the Commission to investigate incidents of wrongdoing but not to arrest, charge, or prosecute members of the security forces. INDECOM does, however, have the power to prosecute members of the security forces for breaches of the INDECOM Act itself, such as obstructing INDECOM from fulfilling its functions. 

As the Privy Council put it, the decision was not about whether INDECOM should have these powers but strictly about whether the present wording of the INDECOM Act gives it those powers. Jamaica’s longstanding issue with impunity for acts of wrongdoing by members of the security forces and the important progress that INDECOM has achieved for the nation since its establishment require that we take all reasonable measures to strengthen the Commission’s operations and safeguard its independence. A Joint Select Committee of Parliament already recommended amendments to the INDECOM Act to explicitly recognize these powers in law. It is the failure to execute these legislative amendments that has produced this situation.  

Jamaicans for Justice calls for lawmakers to safeguard INDECOM’s independence and explicitly recognize its powers to arrest, charge, and prosecute within reasonable parameters.  

Background to the Privy Council’s Decision   

The contention over INDECOM’s powers arises from the attempt to prosecute Corporal Malica Reid for the 2010 fatal shooting of Frederick “Mickey” Hill. In July 2013, the Court, upon enquiring into INDECOM’s powers, held that it had authority to arrest accused members of the security forces under section 20 the INDECOM Act and at common law, but that INDECOM only had the power to prosecute at common law not in statute. That decision was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal in 2018, which held that the wording of the Act did not grant INDECOM those powers. 

Reforms to the INDECOM Act are necessary and overdue  

The lack of clarity regarding INDECOM’s statutory power has been an issue for the Commission since inception. In fact, in 2015, a Joint Select Committee of Parliament recommended an amendment to the INDECOM Act which would give INDECOM the power to charge, arrest, and prosecute members of the security forces. In reviewing the INDECOM Act, the Committee determined that “INDECOM’s entitlement to prosecute” needed to be clarified in law and it drafted new subsections 4(1)(d) and (e) to the INDECOM Act that would explicitly give INDECOM power to “institute and undertake criminal proceedings” or delegate that power to “any person qualified to practice as an Attorney-at-Law.”   

The Committee also agreed to add a new subsection to section 20 of the INDECOM Act that would confirm INDECOM officers’ “powers, authorities and privileges…including: (a) To arrest as is given by the law to a constable; (b) To lay criminal charges and to serve summonses as are given by law to a constable.”   

Why INDECOM should have the power to charge and prosecute 

If INDECOM does not have basic powers to initiate proceedings akin to those of the police, how will charges against officers who commit unlawful acts be laid when there is evidence of criminal conduct? Without these basic powers, the police would have to agree to charge and arrest themselves, secure court dates for, and bring their own officers to court. Can we reasonably expect officers to execute these duties against their peers without favourable bias? This is the opposite of independent oversight. 

We must remember that prior to INDECOM, this type of procedure is what existed. It produced a widespread and well-documented culture of impunity. In fact, this&n