Premier Dr. the Hon. Natalio D. Wheatley addressed the longstanding delay in establishing a Human Rights Commission in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) at the continuation of the First Sitting of the Second Session of the Fifth House of Assembly on 8 January.

Hon. Wheatley emphasised that the concept of a Human Rights Commission was embedded in the 2007 Constitution, yet successive legislatures had failed to implement it. “We had an opportunity, over many years, to bring in a Human Rights Commission,” he noted. “The purpose of this Commission is to ensure that we don’t have poor sense human rights violated. All of the rights we want to protect are right there in the rights and freedom section of the Constitution.”

The Premier highlighted that the current reliance on legal recourse to address human rights violations often excludes those who cannot afford expensive legal representation. “The concept of the Human Rights Commission is not for you to have to spend a whole bunch of money to go to a lawyer or go to court,” Dr. Wheatley explained. “It is about having a commission tasked with investigating violations of human rights.”

Acknowledging past inaction, he vowed that the current legislature would correct this oversight. “That Constitution came in 2007, and it’s going to take this legislature, in 2025, to pass it. I’m not one to cry over spilt milk. We are going to bring the Human Rights Commission and ensure we have a mechanism in place to protect persons’ human rights from abuses.”

Dr. Wheatley also commended members of the opposition and his government for their contributions to refining oversight mechanisms in proposed legislation, particularly regarding police powers and prosecutorial balance. He highlighted the research and recommendations of the Sixth District Representative and the Deputy Premier, who advocated for a more balanced approach in the bill under discussion.

“The Deputy Premier made an excellent point that you need to get the other side so that the bill can have balance,” Dr. Wheatley said. “While we want to give the police the power, we must ensure the bill leans towards fairness for all.”

“An Absolute Travesty”: Sixth District Representative Condemns Police Amendment Bill Over Privacy Risks

Sixth District Representative Myron V. Walwyn has voiced fierce objections to the proposed Police Amendment Bill 2024, during the First Sitting of the Second Session of the Fifth House of Assembly on 7 January.

Mr Walwyn condemned the push to pass the bill through all three readings in one sitting, warning of potential infringements on citizens’ fundamental rights and criticising the lack of public consultation on its far-reaching implications.

“I rise on a point of privilege to echo my very serious concerns with this proposed Police Act amendment going through the first, second, and third stages in one sitting, Madam Speaker,” said Mr Walwyn.

Walwyn highlighted the bill’s potential to infringe on privacy rights guaranteed under the 2007 Constitutional Order. He underscored the absence of public engagement, calling for greater transparency.

“There are some very serious incursions on the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country. We have not been able, Madam Speaker, to make the public fully aware as to what is contained in this bill and the possible implications on their right to privacy,” he said.

Walwyn’s plea for broader consultation was ultimately put to a vote. All government members voted in favour of advancing the bill, while five opposition members, including Walwyn, voted against. One opposition member, Hon. Lorna Smith, abstained.

With a majority of votes in favour, the bill advanced to its third reading, despite Walwyn’s concerns. Legislators commenced debating the bill, continuing discussions when the House resumed sitting today, 8 January.

District Two Representative Hon. Melvin M. Turnbull joined Walwyn in voicing objections.

“I want to also support the sentiments raised by the member for the sixth district regarding this bill and trying to get it to first, second, and third reading. Madam Speaker, this is a new session of the House of Assembly. This Police Act has come and tried to come to this House in many different palm shapes and sizes,” Turnbull remarked.

He expressed unease with the manner in which the bill was being presented, warning of its potential impact on law enforcement and the public.

Hon. Melvin ‘Mitch’ Turnbull

“We have to be careful in what we’re doing. We understand the nature of what we’re dealing with in our territory. It is how we’re doing it, Madam Speaker, and we have to be responsible in how we are presenting something like this to the public. Because it not just affects the police and their ability to do their job, it affects the general public and the people that we are responsible for and our families,” Turnbull said.

Walwyn and Turnbull’s critiques reflect mounting concern over the bill’s potential consequences and the perceived haste in its passage. Walwyn described the process as a disservice to the public, stating, “Madam Speaker, I couldn’t sit here because it will be a travesty. It will be a travesty, an absolute travesty, if you want to do this in this honourable house.”