A power best left alone

GIVEN ALL the ongoing concerns about possible corruption and inefficiency in the system by which firearm licences are granted, the Government’s proposal to bolster the involvement of a minister of national security in the process was ill-timed, in addition to being possibly ill-judged.

It is good, therefore, that this proposal to allow a minister to approve extensions of the validity of licences was dropped from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill in the Senate on Wednesday by the Government.

For sure, the sheer number of applicants seeking licences is a problem, suggesting the need to increase the number of officials who handle applications beyond merely a commissioner of police and an appeals board.

According to Minister of National Security Fitzgerald Hinds, more than 34,000 applications are pending – a figure that is higher than the official number of sanctioned weapons.

Given that the proposal related to extensions of licences already granted beyond a certain term, there was merit to the idea of reducing the burden on the office of the top cop.

Yet, too many cooks can easily spoil the broth.

The granting of a licence is sometimes predicated on certain conditionalities. If such originating terms are later not fulfilled, the granting authority may revoke the licence instead of extending it.

Having a minister meddle in the process might create room for trouble.

It also adds, unnecessarily, a political complexion to the process: a licence-holder may know that extension depends on the say-so of a cabinet minister, and this can hang like a sword of Damocles upon them, especially assuming a situation in which they are deemed to be under threat.

In general, Parliament should tread very carefully when bolstering the powers of the Executive. Unless there is compelling reason to introduce a reform, the situation is best left alone.

The current Cabinet itself has been privy to troubling allegations of wrongdoing involving a range of officials and perhaps it had, up to Wednesday, come to the view that until the process is reformed, the best hope of containing corruption might be to widen the range of officials involved in the process to include non-police actors.

But we should be careful not to replace one problem with another, even if the State has a natural interest in the national security landscape, inclusive of the handling of sanctioned weapons.

Meanwhile, the decision to allow at-risk prison officers, municipal police and members of the Strategic Services Agency authorisation to carry firearms in public places will be welcomed by those aware of the increased threat faced by law enforcement officers. It is surprising such authorisation is only now being granted.

It should not be believed, however, that simply allowing more people to have guns is the panacea to our crime woes.