分类： politics

Jamaica’s Minister of National Security and Peace, Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Horace Chang, has drawn a firm line in the ongoing debate over police body camera use, stating unequivocally that officers will not be required to wear the devices during high-risk operations targeting armed criminals. He has publicly dismissed growing demands from civil society advocates for universal body camera use as an ill-conceived and dangerous proposal that puts law enforcement lives at unnecessary risk.

The debate has intensified in recent months amid a sharp uptick in fatal police shootings across Jamaica, with civil society group Jamaicans For Justice leading repeated calls for mandatory camera deployment during all planned police operations to increase accountability. Chang, who has been locked in public disagreement with the advocacy group over the policy, laid out his full position during Wednesday’s weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at Jamaica House, leaving no ambiguity about his stance.

“This thing that you must wear a camera when you going to look for a man who has a M16 that’s firing 60 rounds per second is a crazy idea,” Chang stated during the briefing. He walked through the practical realities of high-stakes counter-gunman operations, explaining that when gunfire breaks out, officers prioritize taking cover before returning fire, and mandatory body cameras would create avoidable additional hazards. For early morning planned raids targeting dangerous wanted suspects, Chang said cameras are simply off the table.

Noting that fugitive armed criminals often move more quickly than responding officers, Chang emphasized that stealth and surprise are critical to successful operations. “Cameras make them a target,” he explained, adding that officers entering these high-risk scenarios already face extreme danger, and any requirement that compromises their safety cannot be implemented. Unlike routine public interactions, these covert operations cannot afford elements that reveal officers’ positions or identities before they can engage suspects, he argued.

Contrary to claims that the government opposes body camera use entirely, Chang clarified that the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) already has access to body-worn cameras, with 1,000 additional units on order to expand the program, and all officers receive training on how to use the devices. Deployment decisions, he reiterated, rest solely with Commissioner of Police Dr. Kevin Blake, a position he first laid out during his sectoral debate address to Parliament Tuesday. Civil society groups have no authority to dictate how police equipment is deployed in the field, he added.

Chang pointed out that body cameras are already in regular use for appropriate types of operations across Jamaica. For example, at least one officer involved in the national coordinated road check initiative — a program designed to disrupt gang activity and recover illegal firearms — wears a camera during these interactions. This use case aligns with how body cameras are deployed in the United States, where the technology was first adopted broadly to address racial profiling in routine traffic stops and public interactions, not for high-risk tactical SWAT operations. That model is comparable to the work of the JCF’s Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Branch, which already uses cameras when engaging with the public, he noted.

Currently, most local body camera use is for routine public-facing work: road checks and crowd management at entertainment events. Chang highlighted tangible public safety benefits from this existing deployment: since cameras were introduced for traffic stops, confrontations between police and taxi operators have dropped dramatically. “When last have you seen a video — because they used to go viral — of a policeman and a taximan fighting, or a policeman has to beat up a taximan? They don’t, because when the taximan or any driver sees a policeman with a camera and he stops a car, they behave themselves,” he said.

The minister pushed back against what he described as a harmful colonial-era legacy of widespread public assumption that Jamaican authorities and elected officials are inherently corrupt. He argued that repeated calls for universal body camera use for all operations reinforces this false narrative, which he called an unfair misrepresentation of the JCF. “It assumes that those who have authority are corrupt, so the idea that the police is a corrupt body out there to extort people is a wrong legacy. It’s incorrect and I cannot support anything that seeks to reinforce that and that’s what the call for cameras to be used all the time does,” Chang said.

He emphasized that while the government welcomes constructive criticism of law enforcement policy, it is long past time for the public to trust Jamaican police professionals and respect their expertise in operational planning. Acknowledging that the 14,000-strong JCF is not a perfect institution, and that a small number of officers have engaged in criminal misconduct, Chang noted that official data backs up the claim that bad actors are a tiny minority. Statistics from the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom), Jamaica’s police oversight body, show that only 3.4 per cent of police officers charged with offenses in recent years have been convicted.

Chang closed by repeating his call for civil society organizations to allow established oversight processes to run their course before issuing public statements or passing judgement on police operations. He said Indecom, as the independent investigative body, should be allowed to complete its work and release its findings before any public conclusions are drawn about officer conduct.

A former detective constable’s testimony delivered remotely from the United States has introduced significant contradiction into the high-profile murder trial of six Jamaican police officers accused in the 2013 killing of three men, challenging a core claim from an earlier prosecution witness.

Granted permission to testify via video link after prosecutors successfully filed a special measures application, the ex-detective – currently serving in the U.S. military and enrolled in a mandatory promotional program that bars him from traveling to Jamaica for in-person court appearance – took the stand on Wednesday to share his account of processing the 2013 crime scene.

The fatal shooting unfolded on January 12, 2013, near the intersection of Acadia Drive and Evans Avenue in St Andrew, where Matthew Lee, Mark Allen, and Ucliffe Dyer were killed. The six officers on trial – Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, and Constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose, and Richard Lynch – all face murder charges; Fullerton additionally stands accused of submitting a false statement to Jamaica’s Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), the body that probes law enforcement misconduct.

A key earlier witness for the prosecution claimed that from his third-floor apartment window, he witnessed one of the three victims lying on the ground behind a parked blue Mitsubishi Outlander, with officers standing over him, before hearing what he described as explosions and seeing the man go motionless. That witness also said he observed blood in the spot behind the vehicle where he claimed the shooting occurred.

But the former detective, who was tasked with photographing, collecting, and packaging physical evidence from the scene the day of the shooting, told the Home Circuit Court he never detected any red substance matching the description of blood in that area behind the Mitsubishi. This account undermines the credibility of the earlier witness’s core narrative of the shooting.

Under cross-examination from defense attorney Hugh Wildman, who represents four of the six accused officers, the ex-detective confirmed additional details that cast further doubt on the earlier witness’s vantage point. Wildman put forward the argument that a third-floor observer at that apartment building would only have an angled, obstructed view of the parked vehicle, not a clear direct line of sight. The ex-detective told the court he could not confirm the exact location of the apartment building’s entrance, could not accurately estimate the distance between the building and the parked SUV, and never entered the apartment complex or surveyed the full length of Acadia Drive during his evidence collection.

The former detective also acknowledged that he did not use a formal tape measure to record distances at the scene, instead relying on pace counts to estimate measurements, and never measured the full width of the road. He confirmed that all spent bullet casings documented at the scene were properly collected, but noted he was not trained to collect gunpowder residue (GPR) samples, and is not a specialist in forensics or ballistics. When questioned about GPR, he explained that residue presence and concentration can be affected by multiple factors, including movement during firing, weather conditions, and the type of clothing a shooter is wearing. While he confirmed that firing a gun typically leaves GPR on a shooter, he noted that movement can reduce detectable residue levels.

The witness also told the court he was first contacted by INDECOM about two months prior to the trial, and later spoke to lead prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke. He confirmed he informed Pyke last week that his U.S. military promotional program made an in-person court appearance impossible due to conflicting scheduling. He added that he had not spoken to any other INDECOM representatives about his inability to travel.

Two of the six accused are represented by attorneys John Jacobs and Althea Grant-Coppin. Following Wednesday’s testimony, presiding Justice Sonia Bertram-Linton adjourned the proceeding until the following Monday.

KINGSTON, Jamaica — As the Caribbean nation prepares to roll out a landmark new Non-Profit Organisations (NPO) Act by October 2026, civil society leaders across Jamaica are pushing for widespread, inclusive engagement to shape a regulatory framework that supports rather than hinders the sector’s critical national work.

Sector representatives caution that skipping structured, cross-sector consultation during the drafting process could leave the new law creating unintended barriers for the thousands of non-profits it is meant to govern. “Nonprofits are embedded in the communities that will feel the impact of this legislation most acutely. Consultation is not an afterthought — it is a non-negotiable requirement,” explained Nancy Pinchas, executive director of the Council of Voluntary Social Services (CVSS). “Meaningful legislation can only be built if it reflects the day-to-day operational realities of groups delivering frontline services across the country.”

The proposed NPO Act, framed as a long-overdue update to Jamaica’s outdated nonprofit governance rules, will directly impact thousands of organizations that deliver core public services spanning disaster response, public education, social protection for vulnerable populations, youth development, and community climate resilience. Joy Crawford, executive director of HIV advocacy and service organization EVE for Life, echoed Pinchas’ call for inclusive policymaking, emphasizing that on-the-ground community perspectives are indispensable to crafting effective regulation. “When those affected by policy get a seat at the table, outcomes are more equitable, accountability is strengthened, and trust between civil society and government is built,” Crawford noted.

Data compiled by the CVSS from Jamaica’s Department of Co-operatives and Friendly Societies underscores the sector’s massive scale and economic footprint: donations to registered Jamaican charities surpassed $40 billion in 2021 alone, with these resources advancing core national priorities including poverty reduction, public health access, education expansion, and environmental sustainability action.

While Jamaica made incremental updates to nonprofit regulation via the 2013 Charities Act and 2022 implementing regulations, stakeholders agree the current system remains overly burdensome for most groups. Tania Chambers, legal consultant to the CVSS, explained that the existing regulatory structure imposes systemic barriers that limit civil society organizations’ ability to operate effectively.

A key pain point is the country’s dual registration requirement, which forces nonprofit groups to register twice — once as a legal entity and again as a charity — creating redundant paperwork, long processing delays, and persistent operational inefficiency. “Extended timelines for registration and annual renewal are not just minor administrative annoyances,” Chambers emphasized. “They directly block organizations from accessing critical funding, securing required tax exemptions, and rolling out time-sensitive community programs when they are needed most.”

Chambers also highlighted the lack of publicly available, clear service standards for regulatory processes, leaving organizations to navigate an unpredictable, inconsistent system that drives up compliance costs and administrative workload. This burden falls disproportionately on small, community-based groups that already operate on tight budgets and limited staffing. Compounding these challenges are the strict international anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing rules that Jamaica is required to implement. Without a proportionate, risk-based approach tailored to the nonprofit sector, these rules can lead to overregulation of legitimate community groups, pulling scarce resources away from direct service delivery to cover compliance costs.

“Jamaica’s goal must be to strike a careful balance: protecting the integrity of the sector while avoiding excessive administrative red tape that stifles legitimate community work,” Chambers said.

While early government indications suggest the new NPO Act will replace the broken dual registration system with a unified regulatory framework, civil society leaders note this single improvement is not enough to fix the sector’s longstanding problems. They are also calling for the new law to enshrine clear, enforceable service standards for regulatory processes, fully digitize registration and compliance workflows to cut red tape, and adopt a risk-based regulatory approach that accounts for the varying size and operational capacity of different organizations.

Leaders are also pushing for formal, permanent mechanisms to facilitate ongoing collaboration and engagement between government regulators and civil society stakeholders. Chambers warned that a one-size-fits-all regulatory model would harm small community groups, which rarely have the administrative capacity or funding to meet complex compliance requirements designed for large, well-resourced national or international nonprofits.

For stakeholders across the sector, the upcoming NPO Act represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize nonprofit governance and strengthen the sector’s central role in advancing Jamaica’s national development. “This regulatory reform cannot be only about enforcing compliance,” Chambers said. “It needs to create an environment where the sector can grow, innovate, and contribute fully to building a better Jamaica for all.”

Civil society leaders are urging the Jamaican government to prioritize early cross-sector consultation, widespread public outreach, and collaborative policy design to ensure the final legislation is both effective at upholding sector integrity and enabling for nonprofits to carry out their critical work. Without these steps, they warn, the new law could unintentionally shrink civic space across the country, cut off nonprofits from critical funding, and weaken access to core community services for vulnerable Jamaicans.

GEORGETOWN, Guyana — One of South America’s most enduring territorial conflicts is set to enter a critical new chapter next month, as the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), prepares to launch oral arguments on the decades-long border dispute between Guyana and Venezuela beginning May 4.

Speaking during his weekly public affairs program Issues in the News, Guyana’s Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mohabir Anil Nandlall confirmed the hearings are slated to run from May 4 through 8, with the possibility of extending into the subsequent week to accommodate full arguments from both nations.

The upcoming proceedings mark a major milestone for Guyana’s years-long push to secure a final, peaceful, and internationally binding resolution to the conflict centered on the Essequibo region, a sprawling territory that makes up more than two-thirds of Guyana’s total land area.

The roots of the dispute stretch back to the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the official border between the two countries. That ruling remained unchallenged for more than six decades, until Caracas formally declared the award null and void in 1962 and reactivated its long-dormant claim to the Essequibo. In 2018, Guyana took the step of referring the case to the ICJ, asking the court to formally affirm the full legal validity of the 1899 border agreement.

The judicial process adheres to the terms of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, a multilateral pact that sets out structured frameworks for a peaceful resolution between the two parties. When years of bilateral negotiations failed to deliver a breakthrough, the United Nations Secretary-General formally referred the entire dispute to the ICJ for adjudication.

The court has already cleared a key procedural hurdle, ruling in prior proceedings that it holds legitimate jurisdiction over the case. That decision cleared the way for the upcoming hearings on the substantive merits of the dispute, during which legal teams from both Guyana and Venezuela will present their complete legal arguments and evidence to the panel of judges.

To date, Guyana has consistently maintained that the ICJ judicial process is the sole legitimate and internationally recognized pathway to resolving the conflict. Venezuela, for its part, has a long history of questioning the court’s authority over the matter, even as it has taken part in procedural steps including the filing of written legal submissions to the court.

The oral hearings come after all written pleadings from both sides were completed in 2025. Once arguments conclude, the ICJ will deliberate on a final ruling, which will be legally binding on both nations and is widely expected to bring long-awaited legal clarity to one of the Western Hemisphere’s longest-running territorial controversies.