After nearly two years in committee stage, the police bill has been reported back to parliament, yesterday. It has been improved by carrying out a joint scrutiny of two parliamentary standing committees - namely - the social affairs committee and national security committee.
The police bill is the twin sister of the armed services bill. Lucky for the armed services, their armed services bill had a quicker passage. It was adopted months ago. The two bills have been created to clothe those two institutions - police and armed services - with the necessary legal authority so that they may become, and function as independent institutions, capable of discharging their functions as laid down in law.
It is easy to distinguish the two institutions. Police may be a civil institution and armed services may be a military organization. But that distinction is not so easy to make in drafting laws for them both.
The core challenge is the disagreement on who is responsible for what, in circumstances when two institutions come into action. That opens up a whole series of questions, which are often difficult to answer. When some answers are found, some times those answers become somewhat difficult to accept.
First issue relates to the exact nature of powers each of those institutions must have.
Just as much as the armed services need "real and substantive" powers, the police service similarly need "actual and essential" powers to give effect to their respective mandates. Just like the armed services require ancillary powers to carry out their functions the police need auxiliary powers to discharge their responsibilities.
Given the fact that the Maldives police force has been created out of the former national security service, now renamed as Maldives National Defense Force, the relationships of history and personality that run between the two institutions often seem to blur the functional difference and standing of those two institutions.
The historical relationship should not be a reason to influence some minds in making decisions while laying out the powers belonging to each of the two institutions. I have sensed the existence of that influence for some time. Each organization must be understood in its own context without blurring the difference between them.
Ability to bear arms being exclusively reserved for the armed services is for example - one instance where the difference is perceived rather inappropriately.
Further, the manner in which the police service is perceived as against the armed services is another challenge when a law is drafted on the police force. Some powers are seen best to be retained with the armed services even though the police - being what they are as a policing institution - ought to have those powers to fully execute their functions.
Limiting police to the land, and reserving sea and air to the defense force, as envisaged by some, is one such instance, where effective policing powers may be denied to the detriment of the police, as an institution.
There have been instances, where it has been difficult to agree upon the authority available either to the police or the armed services, in respect of a given circumstance. Preventing an unlawful act at sea, may be argued for all purposes to be within the powers of the police as it relates to crime busting. It may, however, be equally argued in the Maldives context, that the instance also is within the powers of the armed services - especially their coast guard.
The issue of arms may also be another sensitive stumbling block. If the police are to be given adequate powers to man the service and deliver on crime detection, prevention and reduction, they may need to be given the authority to import and bear arms themselves. But where would the position of the national defense force be, in that scenario, where arms are allowed to be imported or borne by another organization involved in crime busting. An independent institution, because it ought to carry arms, cannot possibly be subject to the authority of another independent institution.
This becomes a relevant issue because up until now it is the armed services who are allowed to carry arms in, or import them into, the country. The departure from the current practice may be difficult for some to conceive.
A situation where assistance of the armed services may be sought by the police may be an interesting point where the demarcation between the two institutions becomes sharp.
Police would logically insist that troops, be subject to the operational command of the police, if they are deployed to assist a police operation. However, the armed services may have an equally logical argument that, when in any given situation, the military is deployed, operational command is effectively taken over by them, to the exclusion of the police, and that the command shall return to the police when troops are called back into the barracks.
Such is the microscopic roundup of the challenge in finalizing legislation for the two institutions.
The fact of the matter is that both institutions are terribly important for the country in their own respects. Each must have the authority to exist without undue impediment to their function or responsibility. While the armed forces have the responsibility to defend the nation, its territory and its constitution, the police must be able to detect, prevent, bust and investigate crimes inside the territory of the Maldives.
My last word is that in finalizing the police bill in parliament this week, decisions must be made on the professional roles each of the two institutions should fulfill, and not tailored to fit the perceptions of the people who hold the current say. That is the way forward to establish two professional organizations and demarcate the roles between the police and the armed forces of the Maldives.
Comments (8)
The Police bill is already 4 years late.
I feel that a lot of MPs are taking issues personally. When this law is drafted, it is important that parlaimentarians think of our future. Would any of the MPs let their child confront the often armed thugs in the streets of Male'. If it a yes, then all of us should do same. If it is a no, please don't expect others to send their children in harms way.
The MPS is the institution of which public expect the most. Over the last few years, attacks (both physical and verbal) on Police have become a common thing. Young boys of 25 years are sent to patrol the streets of Male' without any way to protect themselves.
If the people of Maldives expect the Police to serve and protect them, they should ensure that the Police are given the necessary power and protection to do their job. The types of arms used by miliatry and police are completely different and hence there should not be any conflict. These are also tactical equipment such as tasers which can be used by the patrol personnel as a self defence.
If the Parliamentrians are not familair with these things, they should consult people who have the knowledge rather than try to pass a bill where the Police become toothless and be blamed for being unable to maintain peace and security of this nation.
I am surprised that MPs who are so vehement in borrowing basic cicil rights laws from the western countries, do not follow suit get ideas from the Police Acts of the same democracies.
Posted by Ahmed | July 23, 2008 11:58 AM
Posted on July 23, 2008 11:58
Two years in the Committee stage & yet I dont see any improvement on this vital bill, looking at the many MPs having much to debate on the Parliament floor about several changes yet to be brought on the bill!
We are a nation being reborn afresh with the dawn of the new millennium. Our complete national edifice is overhauled to bring about betterment & development to cater for the needs of the people!
Why in the world cant we look up to the constitutions of the developed nations when these rifts appear & make a worthy compromise, not conflicting with our religious tenets?
Our predecessors would have to pay dearly for what we are doing now!
Posted by pH | July 23, 2008 6:52 PM
Posted on July 23, 2008 18:52
It's all well and good taking four years to bring the first Police bill into a working legislation, but the fact is the Police service itself has to improve dramatically to be seen as a credible entity.
Ahmed makes a good point in referring to the beat police as 'boys of 25', surely at this age we would expect our street Police to have a fair amount of training and experience to be considered highly trained professional men and women of course.
In his report, which seemed open and fair, John Robertson quite clearly mentioned that for the Police to be seen as a credible street crime deterrent, they would have to get out on the street more rather than travel around in air conditioned four wheel drive vehicles. As he said, part of real police work is to gather intelligence on the street, this is not done 5 or 6 officers to a car, driving through the streets of Male' in air conditioned comfort. It is done by good old fashioned 'showing a presence' and building the confidence and trust of the community, towards earning respect from the people who you 'protect and serve'.
Moreover, respect must be shown by public servants in the first place, the attitude of officers sometimes witnessed, particularly when wearing the combat clothing and especially when wearing riot gear leaves a lot of us thinking we are supposed to be serving them.
This is as important as playing with legislation, were they not recently 75 years old? Where was the bill for the first 75 years?
Posted by Aburu | July 23, 2008 7:10 PM
Posted on July 23, 2008 19:10
The Minister has written bulls--t about the police bill. To get a better picture of what the police bill is really trying to achieve read the following article.
http://minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=4740
Posted by kamana | July 23, 2008 9:00 PM
Posted on July 23, 2008 21:00
Police should be given enough power and protection to tackle crime. MDP MPs gets too personal on this. Some of them feel they can do without police. This was they can create more trouble on the streets.
Posted by amjad | July 24, 2008 8:04 AM
Posted on July 24, 2008 08:04
Since I wrote my comment, the Police Act, the Majlis has passed the Police Act, with a convicing vote that this Bill was voted in a non partisan way. My thanks to all the MPs.
I also read the article which is referred by "kamana". For me, however there is nothing in the article that deserves what is written by nasheed to be graded as Buuls**t.
The article on Minivan News is also an intelligent argument on how some of the clauses can be misused, and the disadvantages of the President having direct command on the Police force, which is a matter that should concern all of us.
Almost all the other arguments can be made against the British Police Act also, which include similar clauses.
Instead of minimising the Police Powers, Parlaiment should find a mechanism where by any misuse of the Powers given are dealt with efficiently and severely. Instituions which need to be given extensive powers should have higher standards of checking that those powers are used properly.
Posted by Ahmed | July 24, 2008 3:22 PM
Posted on July 24, 2008 15:22
Hi Nasheed.
Salaam Alaikum.
Nice article.
The use of Police force for political purposes by President is a fact and not a speculation.
The missing ingredient here is the "Police brutality” very common on the suspects and ‘in custody’. This is what everyone is afraid of. Not the arms they carry or the powers vested onto them.
The Law and the Power derived out of these laws are long overdue our Police force to face up to challenges of the 'modern Maldivian Democracy'
I feel that along with these Laws, the guide lines for interrogations and techniques which can be used on suspects to get information must be spelled out up to the letter and approved by the Majlis.
A politicized police force is the worst nightmare a nation can face.
Posted by Ibrahim Rasheed | July 25, 2008 7:41 AM
Posted on July 25, 2008 07:41
I agree, that, minimizing power (to the police or other institution) is not the solution. The flexibility and discretion should be given to any institution to do their job. To fight abuse, we need to install a checks and balance mechanism - a la "independent" Police Commision.
Unfortunately, independence within police related institutions is sorely lacking - much less public trust in them (for the past abuses).
The fact that the president can directly command police officers is a page out of Mugabe type regimes.
Conclusion, the Maldives police completely lack any form of credible means by which any form of abuse on their part, can be questioned or brought to justice. Dictatorship type mechanism remains.
Best Regards
Posted by Riyaz | July 25, 2008 2:04 PM
Posted on July 25, 2008 14:04