The Dominica Bar Association issues this statement to express our grave concern regarding the events surrounding the March 19th, 2025, protest against the passage of electoral reform bills in Parliament, including the arrests made and charges brought in the aftermath.
While we acknowledge and regret the considerable time that has elapsed since the subject
incidents, it is nonetheless important for the Bar Association to issue this statement to the public, in keeping with the Bar Association’s Constitutional mandate. Further, the issues are still live ones. The delay in the issue of this statement was due to several unrelated reasons, but it has afforded the Bar Association the time to carefully consider the law, the relevant facts and circumstances as far as we have been made aware, and to hold discussions with members regarding the issues arising.
We have also had sight of statements made in the media by the IACHR, the Government, and the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, among others, as well as the sentiments expressed by some members of the public. We understand that the conflicting positions in the public sphere may be puzzling to some, and the DBA hopes, by this statement, to offer some clarity and perspective to the public.
At the outset, the Dominica Bar Association wishes to reaffirm the right to peaceful protest and always calls for adherence to the Rule of Law. We do not condone violence, rioting, or any form of unlawful behaviour, but we remind all that freedom of conscience, expression, and of assembly and association are fundamental constitutional rights of every citizen of Dominica. By their nature, these rights include the right to peacefully protest. The right to freedom of expression and to peacefully assembling must be recognized and protected in accordance with the principles of democracy and the Rule of Law.
The Constitutional rights
Section 11 of the Constitution of Dominica states as follows, in its entirety:-
“Protection of freedom of assembly and association
11. (1) Except with his consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular to form or belong to trade unions or other associations for the protection of his interests.
(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision—
(a) that is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public
morality or public health;
(b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the rights or freedoms of other persons; or
(c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers that are reasonably required for the
proper performance of their functions, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Therefore, there can be and there are indeed legal restrictions to the constitutional freedom, but these must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. What this means is that the restrictions should make sense, be fair, and be acceptable to most people in a society that values democracy.
It should align with the principles of fairness, rights, and freedoms while ensuring the well-being and safety of everyone in that society. Essentially, it’s about finding a balance between individual rights and the common good.
The Arrests and the Riot Act
Weeks after the March 19th protests, we witnessed the arrest and charging of numerous
individuals, including political activists, as well as one of the lawyers actively representing those previously detained. These charges have reportedly been brought under the Riot Act, an 1897 Act (amended in 1939 and 1974), the constitutionality of which warrants serious scrutiny in our modern democratic framework.
The Riot Act (entered as Chapter 10:02 of the 2017 Revised Laws of Dominica) defines an
offence under Section 4, which states that if “…twelve or more persons being…riotously
assembled to the disturbance of the public peace…” refuse to disperse after being
lawfully commanded to do so, they are guilty of an offence and liable to punishment.
Further, Section 6 of the Act outlines how law enforcement may respond when
Individuals continue to unlawfully and riotously assemble after a command to disperse. Section 6 ought to be set out in full.
It states as follows:-
“Where the persons so unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, or twelve or
more of them, after the proclamation is made in the manner mentioned above, we continue
together and do not disperse themselves within one hour, then it shall be lawful for every
Magistrate and every justice of the peace or the senior police officer in the area, and for
Every police officer, constable, and other peace officer of the State, where the assembly
is, and for every other person as shall be commanded to assist any Magistrate or justice
of the peace who is hereby authorised and empowered to command all persons of age and ability to assist him therein, to seize and apprehend, and all persons so commanded
are hereby required to seize and apprehend the persons so unlawfully, riotously, and
tumultuously continuing together after the proclamation is made, and forthwith to carry the
persons so apprehended before a Magistrate or before one or more justice or justices of
the peace, so that they may be proceeded against for such offences according to law;
and if the persons so unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, or any of them shall happen to be killed, maimed, or hurt in the dispersing, seizing, or apprehending or endeavouring to disperse, seize, or apprehend them by reason of their resisting the person or persons so dispersing, seizing, or apprehending or endeavouring to disperse, seize or apprehend them, then every such Magistrate, justice of the peace, police officer, constable, or other peace officer, and all persons aiding or assisting them or any of them shall be free, discharged, and indemnified, as well against the State, as against all other persons of, for or concerning the killing, maiming or hurting of any such persons so unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled as shall happen to be so killed, maimed or hurt as mentioned above”
(emphasis added).
The Riot Act is, therefore, one such piece of legislation that purports to restrict citizens’
constitutional right to assemble, but there is no doubt in our minds that the Riot Act in its present form begs the question whether it is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, as required by the Constitution. We are aware that the constitutionality of the Riot Act is currently before the Court, and this question will be determined.
It is a fact that the United Kingdom once had a Riot Act in similar terms to Dominica’s Riot Act, but the UK has long repealed this Act (since 1967) and in 1986 introduced the “Public Order Act”, a piece of legislation addressing riot (among other things) that is more palatable, acceptable and justifiable in a democratic society. The Public Order Act does not permit or excuse the entire host of actions permitted or excused by section 6 of our Riot Act, and also clearly defines riot in terms relating to violence and fear for safety. Such a clear definition is noticeably absent from Dominica’s Riot Act.
As stated above, the question of the constitutionality of the Riot Act will eventually be determined by the Court. In the meantime, however, it is incumbent on law enforcement to carefully ensure that it does not act in a manner that unduly curtails or aims to curtail citizens’ right to assemble and their freedom of expression.
The framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom, not only subject restrictive laws to being reasonably justifiable but also “the thing done under the authority” of the relevant law. In other words, a law being “on the law books” does not excuse actions supposedly done pursuant to that law if the actions are not justifiable in a democratic society.
The Dominica Bar Association further notes with concern that the arrests made in the aftermath of the protests may have the appearance of being politically targeted. We have been reliably informed that some of the persons arrested and charged under section 4 of the Riot Act were some of the organisers of the protest, who, though initially present, were not present after the order to disperse was given by the police. It is not anticipated by the Act that individuals will be arrested from their homes long after the ‘riot’, for merely being suspected of involvement in the planning of a protest gone awry. The Act criminalizes the ongoing act of rioting, not a protest organization. The arrest of individuals outside the framework established by the Riot Act raises even more serious legal, constitutional, and Rule of Law concerns.
Of particular concern is the arrest and charge of attorney-at-law Ronald Charles, who, after the protests, addressed persons still assembled in the vicinity, expressing his assurance that he would provide legal assistance to individuals facing potential conflict with law enforcement. This lawyer is also the Vice President of the United Workers Party. When the arrests of the protesters began, this lawyer was one of two counsel representing almost all these persons. Then came his arrest several days later. Was this the best exercise of police discretion? The arrest of a lawyer in such circumstances raises serious questions about respect for the sanctity of the right of citizens to legal representation. Such actions could be perceived as a deliberate attempt to intimidate legal professionals, particularly those who may be inclined to represent political activists, and thereby obstruct access to justice and undermine the very foundations of a fair and equitable legal system.
The Dominica Bar Association firmly believes that the right to peaceful protest and dissent is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. While the maintenance of public order is
Undoubtedly a legitimate concern, the response to these protests must be proportionate,
lawful, and respectful of fundamental rights. The use of outdated and potentially
unconstitutional legislation and the targeting of individuals, including legal counsel, cast a shadow over the principles of due process and the rule of law.
Further, the actions of some police officers on the day of the protest itself cannot be ignored. Were the actions of officers of the law who were filmed throwing stones, assaulting citizens, etc., investigated and dealt with by the internal investigative and disciplinary mechanisms of the police force? While the actions of citizens who engaged in such activities on that day ought indeed to be investigated and addressed under the appropriate laws, more so ought to be the actions of the police, the guardians of the law.
The Electoral Reform Laws.
Concerning the electoral reform laws, the subject of the March 19th protests, the Bar Association has already made considerable contributions to the various issues, and these contributions are in the public sphere. For completeness, though, having regard to the purpose of this statement (clarifying conflicting information and giving perspective to the public), we make the following very short observations on what are now the new election laws, on some of the more topical issues:
There was considerable opportunity given for the public to air their views on the proposed laws and the issues. However, regarding the round of consultations hosted by the
government, no official data-based report was issued. In the interest of transparency,
such a report ought to have been issued.
The new laws do provide for voter identification cards (with photo ID) and access to State media by all political parties.
The new laws do provide for a process of cleansing the voter’s list, by voters reconfirming
themselves on the voter’s list, which process is to be done by an electronic system. Until
reconfirmation has taken place, the present Voters’ list is the effective list for any elections.
The new laws do address bribery and treating, as our previous laws did.
However, the new laws do not directly address or prohibit political parties’ paying for the airfares of voters to return home to vote.
The new laws do not provide campaign finance regulations and/or limitations. It should
be noted here that in the electoral reform survey conducted by Sir Dennis Byron, the
majority of participants felt that, for Dominica, there ought to be a cap on election campaign expenditure. Sir Dennis included campaign finance restrictions in his recommended draft laws.
The new laws have removed the ‘five-year absence from the State’ disqualifier for
remaining on the Voters list. This removal essentially permits a voter to remain on the
voter’s list for life, no matter their residence elsewhere or length of absence from the State.
The new laws do improve on the autonomy of the Electoral Commission by establishing
an allocated fund for the Commission, over which it will have full control, administered by
the Chief Elections Officer.
The new laws do not take on board Sir Dennis’ suggestions for improving the impartiality
of the Electoral Commission by establishing broader criteria/qualifications that fall to be
considered when appointing the five members of the Electoral Commission (which he
proposed in a manner that does not appear to conflict with the constitution).
The new laws do not address term limits or a fixed date for elections. These are not issues that were heavily canvassed by citizens prior to or during Sir Dennis Byron’s consultation and report
“Electoral Reform in the Commonwealth of Dominica Survey Report” Annex 4 to Sir Dennis Byron’s 1st Phase Report on Dominica Electoral Reform, 30th November 202,2 pgs. 20 and 55 to 60. “Electoral Reform in the Commonwealth of Dominica Survey Report” Annex 4 to Sir Dennis Byron’s 1st Phase Report on Dominica Electoral Reform, 30th November 2022 (all)
Conclusion
We urge all Dominicans expressing their constitutional right to assemble to do so peacefully and to abide by lawful orders issued by the police. We urge the Dominica Police Force and Prosecutors to exercise their wide discretionary powers with utmost circumspection and to ensure that all actions taken are in strict adherence to the Constitution of Dominica and international human rights standards. The authorities must act in a manner that consistently maintains and promotes a free, civil, and democratic society, where the voices of all citizens can be heard without fear of intimidation or reprisal.
We call on the government to urgently review and update the Riot Act to address its glaring
deficiencies and issues, or areas needing greater scrutiny and clarification. The ruling of
the court on its constitutionality need not wait.
Finally, the Dominica Bar Association calls for transparency and accountability in all these matters and urges a commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to all individuals within our nation. We stand ready to assist in ensuring that the principles of justice and the Rule of Law are upheld in Dominica.
In issuing these calls, the Bar Association will also continue to do its part to educate and guide the public. In this regard, we will soon host our annual Law Week, which will focus on
constitutionality and the Rule of Law, and during which we intend to hold a public panel discussion addressing the topics of peaceful protest, the right to assemble, and the offence of riot. We look forward to the presence and participation of all concerned.
Thank you.
Dominica Bar Association
26th May, 2025
For questions or comments, please contact Mrs Noelize N. Knight Didier, President, at
dominicabarassociation2016@gmail.com