NO PLACE FOR WITCH HUNTS

Curiously, never has there been a piece of legislation which was subject to as many amendments over the years as our Drug Ordinance and rightly so too.  Public law evolves according to the social exigencies of the moment.

There was a time when narcotic abuse was hardly a problem at all in this country.  Naturally, therefore, our drugs legislation, which dates back to the turn of the last century, was extremely mild and clearly ineffective to cater for the problem that would soon scourge our community from the early 1980s onwards.

As the problem worsened, Parliament introduced one reform after the other until, finally, our drug laws evolved into the most stringent and tough from among other European states.  It suffices to consider in this regard that drug trafficking is the only other crime besides wilful homicide that carries a life sentence.

This notwithstanding, however, in our rashness to create an active deterrent against drug trafficking, we might have overlooked certain basic safeguards of criminal law and perhaps in some instances we might even have gone too far, as experience has shown us.  For this reason once again our drug legislation has fallen under scrutiny and has been the subject of criticism from various sectors of society.

The problem seems to emanate from a too wide definition given at law to what constitutes trafficking and the fact that our courts have been precluded completely from giving a more acceptable interpretation of this crime.  Furthermore, unlike the norm, in cases of trafficking a prison term is always mandatory.  The question that is again being asked is whether this is always the right form of approach and punishment in all circumstances.

Our law does not make a distinction between the procuring of narcotics and the mere sharing of the drug.  The debate going on today is whether our courts should be given the discretion to evaluate a particular case on its particular merits and whether they should be given the power in cases of mere sharing to hand down alternative punishment to that of a prison term.  The Minister of Home Affairs and Justice has gone on record stating that he intends to introduce legislation awarding such discretion to our court.

The issue of drug trafficking however remains a very sensitive one since, undoubtedly, its widespread occurrence is undermining the very basis of our society.  It is therefore only right and fitting that future reforms in our drug laws should be the result of as wide a consensus as possible.

In the spirit of all this, the opposition's spokesman on home affairs, Gavin Gulia in my opinion has been taking the right approach.  The Labour Party has avoided polarising the issue and has gone so far as to suggest that the matter should be referred to the Social Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.  Sadly, however, this suggestion was not taken up by the government.  For a time, in fact, it seemed that notwithstanding the offer of collaboration from the opposition, the minister was head-strong introducing unilaterally relative legislation.  This however gave rise to a hue and cry from one and all, not least the opposition.  In the light of this, however, it seems that the minister concerned was struck by a bolt of rationality and has decided to refer the issue to an ad hoc committee spearheaded by the President.  Though, in my opinion, this is not the ideal forum, it is still far better than for the government to impose legislative amendments in an arbitrary fashion.

Society must even in this instance find the fine balance between the interests of society at large and individual justice and even here without hysterics.

* Dr Herrera is a Labour MP.