Waajihatul Islaamiyyah’s (The Islamic Front’s) Objections to The Anti-

Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2020. Scrap This Bill and

Repatriate our Citizens Now Before It’s too late.

Date: February, 13th 2020

Prepared by: Umar Abdullah
Head of Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front)
Tel: +18687870765/+18683656253

Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front) is appalled by the incessant reluctance by this
government to repatriate our women and children trapped in Syria and Iraq. We view the new
proposed Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2020 as another attempt to delay the process. It's
repulsive, unconstitutional and repressive. Other countries; Britain, Denmark, Australia, Canada,
America, Chechnya, France; who were one of the first countries to ban the wearing of the Hijab,
and Nigeria all have started to repatriate their citizens. None of these countries instituted laws
to facilitate this. Netherlands and Germany both were ordered by their courts to repatriate their
women and children. Again, no new legislation was enacted in these countries. Why then does
this government feel the need to enact new laws to facilitate the return of its citizens?

The UN investigators called for thousands of children of jihadists who fought for the Islamic State
group to be repatriated from Syria. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria said in a report that
the children were in a “particularly precarious” situation since they often lacked official papers.

“This, in turn, jeopardizes their rights to a nationality, hinders family reunification processes and
puts them at a higher risk of exploitation and abuse,” the report said. Commission chair Paulo
Pinheiro said the detention of children with adults was “a terrible violation”, urging the relevant
governments to take action to stop this.

“All this delay and not taking these children from these prisons is outrageous. It’s a scandal,” he
said.

Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front) is questioning the motives of this government,
whether or not they have fallen prey to the American rhetoric as was amplified by Col. Claudia
Carrizales, chief of the U.S. Embassy’s Military Liaison Office when she said in July of 2019;
nationals of the country who are in detention in Syria and Iraq are expected to return in a year.

Carrizales questioned if the country, government, and citizens are “ready to deal with that kind
of threat.”

She made the comment while delivering the keynote address at a business forum hosted by the
American Chamber of Commerce of Trinidad and Tobago at the Hilton Hotel, Port-of-Spain.

Carrizales first spoke about the attempted 2018 Carnival terror plot, which she said was not a
hoax.

“If there is anyone in this room that does not believe that the Carnival threat of 2018 was real,
then you are hiding under a rock,” she said.

The police arrested 13 individuals for the terror plot, who were later released with-out charge.

Prior to this, the stage was already being set and our security apparatus was already being
prepped when on the heels of the 2005 dustbin bomb outside Maraj and Sons Jewellers on
Frederick Street, POS, for which a Mossad Agent, was responsible. Like a knee-jerk reaction, a
voice echoed, "Agitate the Muslims to react" This was the mandate given to our law enforcement
officers, by the United States' Anti-terrorism Assistance Program (ATA) as training for our officers
began. This later formed the bases for the creation of 'the Terrorism Interdiction Unit'.

In light of all this, there can only be one objective and that is to set apart the government and
the Muslim Community and to create division amongst the Muslims. Clearly, from this new
proposed Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2020 one can see the American agenda at play. This
bill is riddled with vague and broad parameters, obvious discrimination and abuse of power. It’s
a key to fully opening the doors for a foreign power to come in and interfere with our sovereignty
and international affairs.
The bill starts off by saying "this Act shall have an effect even though inconsistent with sections
4 and 5 of the Constitution." Immediately it attacks:

 Our Right to life and liberty

 Our Right to equality before the law
 Our Right to respect for private and family life
 Our Right to equal treatment from state institutions
 Our Right to the expression of political views
 Our Right to education
 Our Right to freedom of movement
 Our Right to freedom of religion
 Our Right to freedom of expression
 Our Right to freedom of assembly
 Our Right to freedom of the press

Except as otherwise stated in the Chapter, and Section 54 of the Constitution, no law may
'abrogate, abridge or infringe or authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any
of the rights and freedoms hereinbefore recognized and declared'.
Under Section 5(2), Parliament may not impose 'cruel and unusual treatment or punishment' or
authorize or effect the 'arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile' of any person.
Citizens also have the right to be 'promptly' informed of the reason for being arrested or detained
(S5(2)(c)(i), and the right to a legal adviser of his/her own choice (S5(2)(c)(ii)).
Citizens have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
If the person does not speak English, he has the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any
proceedings in which he is involved (S5(2)(g).

However, Section 6 of the Constitution says nothing in Section 4 and 5 will invalidate an existing
law, any enactment to existing law, or enactment which alters an existing law but does not
detract from any of the fundamental rights listed above.

This bill has to be presented and debated in both the lower and upper houses. It may go before
a Joint Select Committee. It will need no less than a three-fifths majority to have it passed and
then ascended by the President. this could take weeks or even months. In the meanwhile, what
is going to happen to our women and children who are trapped under horrible conditions in
camps run by Militias? don't be fooled! The YPG, PYD and the SDF are all reincarnations of the
PKK, a group that has been listed as a terrorist organization and recognized as such by the UN
and the US. The US-funded these terrorist militia groups to fight against the Syrian Army and ISIS.
Now they are running the camps. The latest reports reaching Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic
Front) speaks of extreme torture and beatings. Children are being separated from their mothers
and forced to fight on the battlefield and when the mothers resist, they are badly beaten while
blindfolded.

In 22P(2)(a) of the Bill, it refers to expediting the permit to return in cases where the Minister in
consideration of the urgency of the situation may do so. The urgency is now! We can't afford to
delay much longer. We need to extract these persons now before it’s too late. We don't need
new legislation to do that.

In Part IIIB under the heading "RETURNEES AND FOREIGN TERRORIST FIGHTERS" It states
"returnee" "means a person who is returning to Trinidad and Tobago from a geographical area
where terrorist acts have occurred or are occurring and who is not charged for an offence." Are
we to believe that due process was applied in the apprehension, arrest, and charging of these
persons? What would you expect if a terrorist militia group is running the operations of these
countries?

As we move on, we see where in S22H (a, b and c) the Minister of National Security is being given
full autonomy in decisions to suspend or revoke travel documents. On who's advice? is this
person or these persons qualified in giving such advice? On what grounds or by who's standards
would this advice be given? These are questions that must be answered. S22H (1-5) seeks to
usurp the authority of the Chief Immigration Officer and place the Minister of National Security
in total control. In S22(3-5); where it says a person can apply to the Chief Immigration Officer for
a cancellation of the suspension, it still has to be referred back to the Minister. Let us be reminded
that the Minister of National Security is not independent and could very well be biased in his
judgment and decision making.

In cases where persons have to travel on legitimate business, study or for medical purposes, what
would happen if their documents are suspended? They will now have to wait six (6) months to
have it reviewed by the Chief Immigration Officer, where again it will have to be referred to the
Minister. What if according to S22J (1) the person's travel documents are revoked? and now has
to wait every twelve months according to S22J (2) to have it reviewed? This person's business
may suffer a serious financial blow, a student's quest for knowledge will be crushed or if the
person is suffering from some ailment, may die (May God Forbid). Under this New Amendment
people so affected would not be able to reapply unless 5 years have passed. The Minister will
find himself tied up in litigation for a very long time.

It has also been noted that persons whose travel documents have been suspended or revoked
under this New Law, S22J (5); at the time of the suspension, maybe granted temporary journey -
specific travel documents in order to return to Trinidad and Tobago.
This is not guaranteed and the person would become stateless. This too would subject those
persons to the immigration laws of that country which would cause them to violate those laws.
Under international law, it is illegal to deprive nationals of citizenship if to do so would leave
them stateless.

According to S22K (1) - (2) (a-d) even though a person is in possession of their travel documents,
the person can receive Temporary Exclusion Orders. Unless a person is in possession of a permit
to return or is deported, the Court may order that a temporary exclusion order be imposed on a
person or a returnee, if the Minister "has reasonable grounds " to believe the person has
committed a terrorist act. How is the Minister going to determine this? What are reasonable
grounds? Where would the evidence come from? That the person poses a risk to the public.
Again, what are reasonable grounds? This is purely an assumption that would not be based on
facts.

According to S22L (1) once the Minister believes that these conditions exist, he can make an
application to the court for an order to impose a temporary exclusion order on the person or
returnee. Again, here the Minister is given full autonomy without allowing persons legal counsel
and an opportunity to defend themselves. This is evident in S22L (2) (a-c) where the court would
consider the application in their absence, without being notified and without the opportunity to
seek legal counsel and defend themselves. This is unfair and strikes at the very core of human
rights.

As we continue further, S22M (1) speaks of, once a person is served the exclusion order, it stays
in effect for two (2) years and according to S22M (4) can go beyond two (2) years. What's alarming
though is only when notice of its revocation is served, only then the order is revoked, (See SM
(7)) unlike in the case of revocation of travel documents in S22L (2) (a-c) where the order is made
without informing them and in their absence. This is indeed unconstitutional and unfair. Here
again, persons can find themselves stranded and stateless.
If persons are desirous of returning to Trinidad and Tobago according to S22N (1) would be
required to fill out a form. We are curious as to how would these forms be acquired. Since the
31st of December 2019 when the Marijuana legislation went into effect, to date the Police has
yet to get scales and ticket books for ganja offences. Are we to believe these forms would be
made available to persons in Syria and Iraq? What is also baffling is according to SN (6) (a-c) must
state the date and time of arrival, How and by what means would they journey to Trinidad and
in what place would they arrive. Can one imagine the length of time all this information would
take to sort out?

All this can be avoided if the government could just simply provide travel documents and allow
for the families here in Trinidad to purchase their tickets. Why the need for the long and drawn-
out process?

According to SQ (2) (C), the Minister may revoke a permit if he no longer considers that the
situation is Urgent. Just the mere fact these persons are in a hostile foreign land living under
those horrible and treacherous conditions is urgent enough. Since 2017 the Minister was made
aware of this situation. What type of government would use such delay tactics and excuses not
to repatriate their citizens and rescue them from such inhumane conditions? What possibly could
cause the Minister to draw such conclusions, that a matter of urgency no longer exists?

Again, in S22Q(2)(e), another oversight was made. Here it states the Minister may revoke a
permit to return if he considers it to have been obtained by misrepresentation. Having to undergo
such ordeal wouldn't these people do what is necessary to get back home even if it means they
have to lie? How difficult are we making this process? wouldn't these people withhold
information especially if they are of the belief what they revel would be held against them?

As we highlight these issues regarding Information and misrepresentation, we'd like to take a
look at S22R (2) (a-c) (i-xvii), Here it refers to Obligations after returning to Trinidad and Tobago.
"The Minister may, by notice, impose any or all of the permitted obligations on a person or
returnee." The requirements listed under SS(2)SS(c)SS(vii, xv, xvii, and xx), begs the question who
would this information be shared with and what guarantees are there that the information
shared would remain confidential and the information given regarding those persons or entities
would not lead to them be profiled and investigated which may lead to a number of
complications, as have been reported to this organization, where one none Muslim national
whilst attempting to renew her passport, she received a call from special branch asking why is
she applying for a passport and to which country does she intends to travel. Since when in this
country, you are not allowed to apply for a passport? without being intimidated by our National
Security apparatus? This is an attempt to profile every person and or organization these
returnees are in association with.

Subject to S22T (1-7), persons returning to Trinidad and Tobago, "...shall be detained at a
residence designated by the Minister by order...." ".... not exceeding two years." are these
designated residences Jails, Homes or rehabilitative institutions? How would these persons be
kept and monitored? and by whom? It goes on to state even though these detentions are subject
for review after every six months by the Minister it can be lengthened for a further one year.
Already our institutions are overwhelmed by a number of challenging cases. Who is going to be
given the task of managing all of this? Are the one per cent fanciers going to be given these
lucrative contracts like we have seen happen with the prison transport and the IDC?

Under S22W (2) a person can challenge the Minister and apply to the court to review his decision,
as stated in SS (2) SS(a)SS(i-iv). How are these applications going to be made? by especially those
outside of Trinidad and Tobago? through whom would this application be made? and who is
going to fit the cost of this expense? Do these persons have any means of income? Why doesn't
this Bill give the responsibility to the court in the first instance? or a body specially selected by
the President of our Republic and task them with that responsibility? Why the Minister whom we
all know to be partisan, biased and not impartial? Why not an independent body with no
affiliations nor obligations, with no other mandate except to act in the best interest of the citizens
of Trinidad and Tobago?

Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front) has reviewed the proposed Anti-Terrorism
(Amendment) Bill 2020. We have unanimously concluded the following:

 This bill seeks to strip away our Freedom, Fundamental Rights, and privileges.
 This Bill is another attempt to delay the process of repatriation.
 This is an attempt to divide the Muslim Community.
 This is an attempt to anger some sectors of the Muslim Community and to agitate them
to act against the government.
 There has been a huge oversight by the crafters of this Bill.
 Very little consideration was given to the negative fallout of this Bill and its implication.
 This administration continues to allow the sufferings of these persons who are being
detained under very inhumane conditions, who are being beaten on a daily basis, who
are being tortured and whose children are being snatched away and made into child
soldiers.
Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front) therefore calls on the opposition not to support this
bill in its present form. We are calling on all of civil society to join our rallying call to oppose this
Bill and to remind the government they work for us we don't work for them. They are accountable
to the people. We are advocating that this Bill be scrapped and is asking the government to act
with haste and repatriate our citizens who have been trapped in Syria and Iraq, already we are
getting reports of our citizens suffering extreme cold temperatures, immense hardship and
unbearable torture. The government must act now and bring home to our citizens before it’s too
late.
UA/WI/TIF