标签： Jamaica

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia — In an unprecedented display of sharia law enforcement, Indonesian authorities administered 140 cane strikes to each member of an unmarried couple on Thursday, marking one of the most severe corporal punishments recorded since the conservative region implemented Islamic jurisprudence. The public flogging, conducted in a municipal park before dozens of spectators, underscores Aceh’s unique position as Indonesia’s only province operating under formal sharia framework.

The sentencing breakdown specified 100 lashes for engaging in premarital sexual relations and an additional 40 strikes for alcohol consumption—violations considered grave offenses under Aceh’s legal code. During the execution of punishment, the female recipient lost consciousness following her caning and required immediate medical evacuation via ambulance.

Notably, among the six individuals flogged for various moral infractions were a serving sharia police officer and his female companion, who received 23 strikes each after being discovered in compromising circumstances. Muhammad Rizal, head of Banda Aceh’s Sharia Police Unit, emphasized institutional accountability stating: “We make no exceptions, especially not for our own members. This certainly tarnishes our name.”

The practice of judicial caning maintains substantial popular support throughout Aceh, where it serves as prescribed punishment for multiple offenses including gambling, homosexual acts, alcohol consumption, and extramarital sexual conduct. This latest case exceeds previous records, including last year’s sentencing of two men to 76 lashes for similar violations, reflecting the region’s stringent interpretation of Islamic penal codes since gaining special autonomy in 2001.

KINGSTON, Jamaica – Jamaica’s government has inaugurated a transformative flexible work program for its public sector, scheduled for phased implementation commencing February 2, 2026. The initiative introduces multiple staggered work schedules designed to modernize public service operations while enhancing efficiency and employee satisfaction.

The flexible arrangements will offer five distinct work windows: 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM; 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM; 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (traditional hours); 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM; and 10:30 AM to 7:00 PM. This structured approach aims to optimize public service delivery while accommodating diverse employee needs.

Ambassador Audrey Marks, Minister of Efficiency, Innovation and Digital Transformation, characterized the move as a strategic component of Jamaica’s comprehensive public-sector modernization agenda. “This implementation represents an important and deliberate step in Jamaica’s ongoing public-sector transformation programme,” she stated during the official launch at Jamaica House on January 29.

The minister emphasized that while participation remains voluntary, the government strongly encourages adoption across eligible departments. Approximately 32 government entities have already piloted elements of the Flexible Work Programme with positive results, providing a foundation for broader implementation.

Minister Marks clarified that traditional 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM schedules would remain universally available, ensuring no employee is compelled to adopt alternative hours. The program acknowledges that certain essential positions may not accommodate flexible arrangements due to operational requirements.

The initiative operates under the legal framework established by the 2014 Employment Flexible Work Arrangements Miscellaneous Provisions Act, which legitimizes various flexible work models including staggered hours, hybrid arrangements, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and hour banking systems. This legislation carefully balances worker well-being with maintained service standards and organizational performance.

This systematic implementation marks the government’s transition from policy development to actionable programming, beginning with the public sector as a model for modern workforce management practices.

KINGSTON, Jamaica — In a forceful directive, Jamaica’s Ministry of Education, Skills, Youth and Information (MoESYI) has issued a renewed mandate to all educational institutions, asserting that denying any child entry into public schools constitutes a severe breach of both international and national law. The ministry’s latest bulletin serves as an unequivocal reminder that the fundamental right to education is non-negotiable.

The ministry explicitly stated that preventing children from participating in educational activities due to pending psycho-educational assessments is an unacceptable practice. Such exclusions are identified as direct violations of Articles 28 and 29 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and Jamaica’s own Child Care and Protection Act. School administrators are warned that these actions not only deprive children of their rights but also expose them to significant social, emotional, and environmental risks, further exacerbating learning disparities and potentially fostering behavioral issues.

Emphasizing that school leaders act as agents of the state, the bulletin places the responsibility squarely on them to ensure uninterrupted access to teaching and learning for every child, including those awaiting diagnostic services. The ministry’s core mandate is reaffirmed: to prioritize enrollment and attendance above all else.

Guidance for principals facing challenges in providing necessary support is outlined, with instructions to immediately contact their assigned education officer or regional director. Furthermore, the ministry has established a protocol to treat any reported out-of-school situation as an emergency, activating immediate measures for swift student placement. This comprehensive support system includes intervention to facilitate enrollment, sensitization training for staff, and even the provision of a Special Education Needs Assistant (SENA)—also known as a shadow or caregiver—without the prerequisite of a formal assessment report.

The ministry’s stance is clear: no parent should depart from a public school feeling disregarded, unassisted, or without hope. All institutions with available capacity are obligated to assist families seeking enrollment.

In a dramatic turn at the Supreme Court, defense attorney Hugh Wildman has leveled explosive allegations against key prosecution witness Floyd Green, accusing him of conspiring with the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) to fabricate charges against six police officers standing trial for murder.

The officers—Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, and Constables Orandy Rose, Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, and Richard Lynch—face charges related to the January 12, 2013 shooting on Arcadia Drive in St. Andrew that resulted in the deaths of three unarmed men: Matthew Lee, Mark Allen, and Ucliffe Dyer.

During cross-examination, Wildman, representing Fullerton and Rose, directly confronted Green, a senior politician who testified to witnessing the shootings from a nearby apartment window. “I’m suggesting to you that this case here is a conspiracy between you and Indecom to convict these innocent police officers,” Wildman declared, prompting an immediate and heated denial from Green.

The witness vehemently rejected the allegation, stating there was “absolutely no way” he would conspire with anyone, including Indecom. When Wildman characterized the case as “concocted” and suggested Green had never been present at the crime scene, the politician dismissed the claims as nonsensical, emphasizing he had no prior acquaintance with any of the accused officers.

The prosecution objected to Wildman’s line of questioning, describing it as illogical and pointing to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ ruling that authorized charges against the officers. Presiding Judge Justice Sonia Bertram Linton intervened, affirming the defense’s right to challenge witness integrity while noting that a tribunal of fact would ultimately resolve such issues.

Wildman further scrutinized Green’s credibility by referencing his 2021 resignation as agriculture minister following a COVID-19 protocol violation. Green clarified that while his actions weren’t illegal, they didn’t align with government expectations, prompting his voluntary resignation. Wildman attempted to link this incident to potential bias in the DPP’s ruling, which Green dismissed as “inaccurate, false, misguided, illogical [and] nonsensical.”

The cross-examination also revealed that Green provided his statement to Indecom four years after the incident, initially through an anonymous letter. Green explained his delayed involvement stemmed from initial fear, but his conscience and civic duty ultimately compelled him to cooperate—a decision made easier by his subsequent ministerial status and security detail.

A significant portion of the proceedings focused on Green’s recollection of the incident’s timing. While Wildman emphasized the importance of remembering the specific day (Saturday), Green maintained that the date and what he witnessed held greater significance than the day of the week, noting the 13-year gap since the event.

Justice Bertram Linton again reminded participants that the tribunal of fact would determine the weight of such discrepancies in assessing witness credibility.