Peter Espeut | A human rights or an English problem?

In his contribution to the sectoral debate in Parliament last week Wednesday (June 10), Minister of Justice, Delroy Chuck, stated, inter alia, that “Jamaica does not – and I hope will never have – a human rights problem”. 

Needless to say, Minister Chuck’s assertion has triggered howls of protest and disagreement from many individuals and civil society organizations [including Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ)]; only the rank tribalists of his party will agree with him.  

Brutality by the Jamaican police has been a long-standing problem.  Conditions in Jamaican prisons and lock-ups are notoriously poor, with overcrowding, poor ventilation, and poor sanitation.   Our right to speedy trials is not respected; some people get lost in the system and spend years in jail without their cases even coming to trial.  Poor people will be speedily locked up for stealing a few ackees, while cases involving millions of dollars (especially involving politicians) and illicit enrichment seem to take forever.

Life in the political garrisons (of both parties) is unfree – especially at election time – and a denial of basic human rights, but I don’t expect the authors of the garrisons to admit that.   

Jamaica’s constitution defines a healthy and productive environment as a right for Jamaican humans, and recently, Jamaica’s constitutional court has ruled that our human rights have been breached in the Rio Bueno Mountain quarrying permit case.  Our human right to a healthy environment is widely breached, and is the norm rather than the exception.  

Let’s not talk about the right of Jamaican children to quality primary education, as that is sub judice. 

Brother Delroy is a bright fellah!  He has a university degree in mathematics!  And is a competent chess player!  And he is, after all, the 1993 Jamaica Rhodes Scholar – one of the best and brightest minds that this country has produced.  And a King’s Counsel no less!  

I expected that after the backlash that his comments produced, he would have reflected, thought a bit, and then qualified his mindless and impulsive remarks. 

But speaking last Monday on the JFJ-produced radio programme “Let’s Talk Justice”, Minister Chuck doubled down on his untenable position.  I have personally transcribed some of his remarks below:

“There is no onslaught of cases against the state in terms of human rights breaches.  I stand by my position that Jamaica is not suffering from any human rights challenges.  I am not denying that there can be cases, but we have not seen a situation in which there is a wide-scale breach of the people’s human rights. 

“We have several institutions that can defend the human rights breaches of Jamaicans.  The primary one is the Public Defender and there is no doubt that she has not had many cases before the courts, or even against the government in terms of human rights breaches.  

“Now, you have INDECOM.  INDECOM has investigated every single allegation of breaches or any fatalities or misconduct, and here again for every hundred cases that INDECOM has investigated, I doubt if more than two percent of them have actually found that there has been misconduct, that they require compensation to the particular person who alleges a breach of human rights”.

Now, ole time people sey dat “mout’ mek fe talk”, but surely cabinet ministers should be careful what they use their mouth for: they must make credible claims, and they must be able to defend their claims with logical, rational, arguments.

And so the submission of Delroy Chuck, KC before the court of public opinion is that because the Public Defender brings so few cases to court, and because INDECOM charges so few policemen, this is proof that Jamaica does not have a human rights problem.

And I suppose he might also say that because so few politicians are prosecuted under the Integrity Commission Act, this proves that Jamaica’s politicians are free from corruption, and that Jamaica does not have a problem with political corruption.

But INDECOM says it cannot charge more policemen for murder or whatever because police officers on special targeted and intelligence-driven operations do not wear body-cameras.  The police have the body-worn cameras, and the Commissioner tells us that they have the digital framework and capacity to store and retrieve the “footage”, but they choose not to deploy the cameras in contexts where the police may kill someone.

No witnesses are alive, and there is no video evidence,

In the 365 days of 2025, the police killed 311 persons.  In the first 168 days of 2026 (up to Wednesday last) there were 155 police killings, and there were 16 police killings in the first 17 days of June.  With not one police camera in place to exonerate the police (so easy to do).  

And Jamaica does not have a human rights problem?  [Come, Delroy: you are a math whiz.  Look at the numbers].  Someone may have an English problem: not knowing the definition of a human rights problem.

Neither of the priests would have been proud.

And the Integrity Commission has a hard time prosecuting politicians because their income and asset declarations are a national secret; were they public declarations, witnesses would probably come forward with evidence of undeclared assets.  So they will remain secret.

No, Brother Delroy!  The absence of cases brought to court is evidence of how INDECOM and the Integrity Commission are hamstrung by the police-friendly, politician-friendly (and corruption-friendly) legislation enacted by members of the Honourable House of Representatives.

Redeem yourself, Brother Delroy, and revise your assertion that Jamaica does not have a human rights problem.

And become an advocate for full transparency in police operations and in integrity matters.  I know you well enough to expect better.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com