Opposition Senator Malaka Parker warned Monday that legislation expanding police search warrant powers could erode constitutional protections against arbitrary searches, arguing that Parliament should strengthen judicial oversight rather than grant broader authority without additional safeguards.
Speaking during Senate debate on the Magistrates’ Code of Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2026, Parker said the bill goes beyond a simple legislative update by significantly expanding the circumstances under which search warrants may be issued.
She took particular issue with the bill’s provision allowing magistrates to issue warrants where there is reasonable cause to believe that “an offence of any kind” has been or is being committed.
“I do not think this bill is forward-thinking. I do not think it is progressive. I do not think it is modernizing,” Parker told senators, arguing the amendment broadens police powers without clearly defining their limits.
Parker said search warrants have traditionally been reserved for more serious offences and questioned why the legislation was drafted to cover “any offence” rather than indictable or other serious offences.
She also warned that the proposal could create constitutional challenges because it alters the relationship between police powers, judicial oversight and citizens’ rights to privacy.
The opposition senator said while police have always been able to seize contraband plainly visible during the execution of a lawful warrant, the new legislation goes further by allowing evidence of other offences to be seized without clearly outlining the safeguards governing that process.
Parker proposed that any evidence recovered outside the original scope of a search warrant should be presented to a magistrate within 48 hours to ensure continued judicial supervision.
She also urged the government to develop a comprehensive legal code governing search warrants, evidence retention and police procedures instead of addressing those issues through piecemeal amendments.
“The police has to get a search warrant to begin with because judicial oversight is necessary to curtail the possibility of abuse and to secure and protect rights,” Parker said.
Leader of Government Business in the Senate Shenella Govia rejected suggestions that the amendment weakens constitutional protections, arguing instead that it modernizes outdated legislation to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal activity.
Govia said criminals have become more organized and resourceful and that law enforcement must be equipped with modern legal tools to investigate offences effectively.
“As a forward-thinking government, we want to ensure that as the world evolves, as time goes on, crime evolves,” she said.
She argued that replacing references to specific offences with broader language ensures search warrant provisions remain relevant regardless of how criminal activity changes over time.
Govia also defended provisions allowing police to seize evidence of offences discovered while executing a lawful warrant.
“If you go into a house and you see a bag of illegal substance, what are you going to do?” she asked senators. “Crime has no restriction, no limits.”
She stressed that the amendment does not eliminate judicial oversight because officers must still satisfy a magistrate, under oath, before any search warrant can be issued.
Government senators maintained that the changes are intended to strengthen public safety while preserving existing constitutional safeguards.
Despite the opposition’s concerns and calls for additional protections, no amendments were accepted during the committee stage.
The Senate subsequently read the Magistrates’ Code of Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2026 a third time and approved it, paving the way for the expanded search warrant provisions to become law.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
https://antiguanewsroom.com/pastor-and-barber-remanded-over-alleged-cannabis-trafficking-case/
I totally agree with this bill. As Govia hinted. Crime is crime.let me give another example.
Police gefs a warrant to search for drugs. They finds, or also finds, 20 tvs. They know that 20 tvs was stolen from Mega Store recently, but the warrant was for drugs. What happens nex
One thing I hate about opposition parties around the world is that they feel that they must oppose for the sake of opposing.
They will be the first to say that the police went to execute a search warrant for XYZ, why did they not mention that they found XYZ in the corner…….
Boy I tell you…
WHAT THE HELL…! …EXPANDING SEARCH WARRANTS: OR
…MAKING COMEDY OF PARLIAMENTARIANS? …THEREBY EXPLOITING THEIR DOCILITY
***
Not sure whether it was some:
(a) ‘….SOME DUNCY-HEADED POLICE OFFICER: or
(b) …SOME ‘INEBRIATED: ..IDIOTIC: AND EGOISTIC PARLIAMENTARIAN: who
(c) …SOUGHT TO RE-INVENT ALREADY EXISTED POLICE PROCEDURES,’ but
***
(d) …HERE IS THE ‘…EXISTING AUTHORITY:
Those with familiarity with the ‘…POLICE ACT:’ know
(i) ‘…IT IS THE DUTY OF ALL POLICE OFFICERS: to
(ii) …SERVE AND EXECUTE AT ANY TIME:
(a) …INCLUDING SUNDAYS:
(iii) …ALL PROCESSES WHICH THEY MAY BE DIRECTED: by
(iv) …ANY COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: or
(v) …ANY MAGISTRATE: or
(vi) …CORONER: or
(vii) …JUSTICE OF THE PEACE: in
(viii) …ANY CRIMIBAL MATTER: to
(a) …SERVE (Summons): or
(b) …EXECUTE (Warrants: Search: Arrest: Remand).
[Section 23 (f): Police Act: Chapter 330: and SECTION 22 (e);…ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA].
PROFESSIONALY SPEAKING, …NO MORE AUTHORITY IS NEEDED:
…REASONABLE SUSPICION IS NEEDED.
SO @ RON, WRONG LIKE HELL.
THOUGH NOT INCLUDED, NEEED NO WARRANT TO SEARCH FOR ‘…TV’s.’
ONLY HAVE TO SUSPECT THEY WERE:
(a) STOLEN: or
(b) …UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.’
***
BEEN THERE: …DONE THAT.
***
‘…WHATEVER WAS BEING SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED, SWEARING ON ‘OATH’ TO CONVINCE ‘…ISSUING MAGISTRATES,’ A ‘…LEGAL REQUIREMENT.’
***
WHAT THE HELL…!
***
NUMERICAL NUMBSKULLERS
Well, if these appareent ‘…NUMERICAL NUMBSKULLERS’ do not read, how the hell, are they expected to know?
***
WALK GOOD.
***
this go end up just like how police take way ppl phone when them video them and say them a obstruct police or when them bang u and say u resist arrest if police had a good reputation we wouldn’t have to scrutinize every legal adjustment look at the weed thing gone from kids a get lock up to any body
why am I gonna leave my country to vacation somewhere I can get lock up for relaxing with a smoke a cigarette and na talk bout weed unless u a (investor)
Comments are closed.