Law Association wants stronger safeguards on Zones of Special Operation bill

THE Law Association has expressed conditional support for the Law Reform (Zones of Special Operation) (Special Security and Community Development Measures) Bill 2026, while warning that the legislation, as drafted, requires tighter safeguards to prevent undue erosion of constitutional rights.

In its comment issued as the bill was being debated in the Senate, the association said it supported legislative initiatives aimed at strengthening public order and citizen security, but stressed that the proposed law must remain “reasonably justifiable in a society that has a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.”

The association noted that the bill is expressly designed to operate notwithstanding sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution, meaning it contemplates passage with a special majority. As a result, it said the exceptional nature of the legislation must be matched by exceptional safeguards, including strict time limits, clear definitions, judicial oversight, and robust reporting and review mechanisms.

“Our concern, therefore, is to ensure that the bill is reasonably justifiable in a society that has a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.”

One of the association’s central concerns relates to the declaration of Zones of Special Operation (ZOSOs). Clause 6 of the bill allows a zone to be declared where there are reasonable grounds to believe there is “rampant criminality” or a “threat to the rule of law and public order.”

According to the association, these phrases are overly broad and risk over-declaration, thereby weakening accountability. It recommended that the terms be defined by reference to objective indicators such as sustained violent incident rates, documented gang control, or repeated targeted attacks.

“These phrases are very broad. They risk over-declaration and weaken accountability.”

The association also pointed out that the bill does not expressly require a finding that ordinary policing tools are inadequate before a zone is declared. It suggested the inclusion of a proportionality safeguard requiring the Prime Minister in Council to be satisfied that existing law enforcement powers cannot reasonably address the threat without resorting to special measures.

While the bill requires a statement to Parliament within 14 days of a declaration, the association said there is no requirement for published reasons or an evidence summary. It recommended that short public reasons for the declaration of a zone be mandated, subject to operational security considerations.

The association raised further concerns about the extension of ZOSOs, noting that although extensions of up to 180 days are subject to affirmative resolution in Parliament, there is no cap on the number of extensions. It recommended that renewals be conditioned on the provision of performance metrics, rights-impact data, and progress reports on the social development “build phase.”

On curfews, LATT welcomed the inclusion of exemptions but said the bill should provide clearer categories for medical emergencies, essential work, caregiving, and late-shift workers. It also called for a fast-track permit system with written reasons for refusals, and mandatory logging of curfew and cordon operations in a curfew/cordon log to be included in the 30-day reporting stream.

With respect to search and seizure powers, LATT noted that the “reasonable suspicion” standard is well established in law, but warned that searches without warrants inside zones carry a high risk of arbitrary interference. It recommended mandatory record-keeping, auditability, and explicit documentation of grounds for suspicion, including whether body-worn cameras were activated.

“The bill would be improved by explicit record-keeping and auditability: time, location, grounds, items seized and body-camera activation status.” LATT suggested a new clause for the officer in charge completing a standard search record, capturing the grounds for suspicion and whether the body-worn camera was activated. If body-worn cameras were not used, LATT suggested a requirement for a brief written explanation.

LATT called for stronger accountability mechanisms, including mandatory use of body-worn cameras rather than use “as far as is possible,” tighter controls on exemptions from weapon registration, and clearer identification requirements when officers compel disclosure of name and address.

“Given that the creation of zones result in the suspension of some constitutional rights, we recommend that it be made compulsory that body cameras be used or some other recording device “

In its comments, LATT described the arrest and detention safeguards in clauses 18 to 21 as positive, particularly the requirement that detainees be brought promptly before a magistrate and that further detention be subject to judicial control.

However, it said the bill should expressly guarantee access to legal counsel without delay, the right to inform a family member, and clearer limits on detention. The Association warned that, as drafted, the bill is silent on maximum detention periods after a High Court appearance and could be construed as permitting indefinite detention without charge.

“These safeguards are a positive feature and align with the bill’s stated objective of preserving human rights during operations.”

LATT recommended that arrest and detention powers be tied to reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence, and that the bill clearly address time limits, charging obligations, and release where charges are delayed.

“Is there a time limit on how long he could be detained after being brought before the High Court? Is there a time limit on how long he could be detained without charge? If there is delay in charging him, is he to be released? We recommend that the bill address all these issues. We are concerned that in the absence of clarity, the bill may be construed as permitting indefinite detention without charge.”

On the social development component of the bill, LATT said the Social Transformation Committee is essential to the legitimacy of ZOSOs and to ensuring an exit from coercive security measures. It recommended that the committee’s development plan include measurable deliverables, timelines, budgets, lead agencies, and public reporting.

LATT further suggested that Members of Parliament for affected zones should be ex officio members of the committee, rather than optional appointees, to strengthen accountability and community integration.

LATT noted that its comments on the legislation were not sought before it was first read in the Parliament, but said it supported legislative initiatives aimed at strengthening public order and citizen security.

The debate will continue on January 23.