Senior Political Reporter
Opposition People’s National Movement Senator Sanjiv Boodhu says provisions in the Government’s Home Invasion (Self Defence and Defence of Property) Bill 2025 are already covered by existing law and the bill doesn’t allow people to simply “load de ’matic, knock it on dem, empty the clip, reload and knock it on dem again.”
He said, “This bill doesn’t provide a homeowner with any protection they don’t currently have. It doesn’t protect firearms owners any more than they’re currently protected for in law and it doesn’t affect the police’s ability to deter, detect, arrest and charge in home invasions.”
Speaking in yesterday’s Senate debate on the bill, Boodhu rebutted arguments by Attorney General John Jeremie and United National Congress senator Dr Natalie Chaitan Maharaj, including that the current law was insufficient.
He said the public was very alert to misinformation that came from the Government. Boodhu cited and quoted from a piece by Jagdeo Singh (current House Speaker) before he became speaker, whose points included that a separate “stand-your-ground” statutory provision is wholly unnecessary.
Boodhu also said the bill was simply “statutory surplusage” and the Government must be honest and upfront with the people on that.
“Don’t give people false information, misinformation and unjustifiable guarantees that you cannot deliver and falsehood that this going to achieve anything—this bill achieves nothing,” he added.
Boodhu pointed out that the bill doesn’t aid the TTPS’ intelligence gathering or intercepting any communication, or create any special TTPS unit to deal with home invasions.
He said it didn’t aid the Director of Public Prosecutions with a special unit on this either and doesn’t assist the criminal justice system at all.
“But it adds another office to a backlog of systems.”
Boodhu said the previous PNM government’s work, however, allowed for probes to be done faster.
“That’s what assists the crime fight.”
Nor does the bill make it easier to get a firearm or enhance TTPS’ firearm application qualifications.
Citing other issues with firearms, Boodhu said if the Government’s narrative was “load up the ’matic, knock it on dem, empty the clip,” the bill did nothing to address firearm issues.
He said the PNM wanted to see laws where people were allowed to retain their firearms after they’ve used it.
He said there was nothing in the bill to address the Bail Act for people changed and there are already various laws covering the issues in the bill—trespassing, rape, grievous sexual assault, etc, as well as on “aggravating factors” such as involving children and senior citizens.
De la Bastide: Bill won’t deter bandits
Independent senator Simon de la Bastide commended the Government for bringing a bill codifying the law on self-defence.
He, however, suggested several changes as he expressed concerns over issues in clauses, including being unjust and also on the bill’s provision for use of “deadly force.”
De la Bastide agreed with the Law Association’s comments where the bill elevates the occupants’ interest in their property over the home invader’s right to life.
To that extent, he didn’t think the bill could be considered constitutional even if passed by a three-fifths majority vote. He said while he approved of other sectors, this was a sticking point for him.
De la Bastide said the bill won’t serve to reduce crime or home invasions.
“It would be fanciful to suggest that prospective home invaders are going to have second thoughts about invading homes because of this legislation. They’re not going to be deterred from invading someone’s house with weapons on the basis that this Bill will make it more likely they face resistance or greater resistance,” he added.
He said the bill wouldn’t make any difference for the vast majority of citizens, as they don’t have access to firearms.
“But the vast majority of home invaders have access to firearms and are willing to use them.”
In circumstances of confrontation, he said one either had to run, or surrender, or stand-your-ground and resist.
“And most likely be killed—the bill won’t change that. We have to be careful we don’t raise public expectations and make them feel they can take reckless action,” de la Bastide added.
