ROSEAU, Dominica, CMC – The Dominica government has indicated a willingness to continue supporting the existing Riot Act even as a retired justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court urged it to consider repealing certain sections of the 1897 legislation.
Dominican-born jurist, Wynant Adrien Roberts, told a panel discussion of the Dominica Bar Association (DBA) on Thursday night that while wholesale changes may not be needed, certain sections need to be repealed.
“While I would not hold the whole Act as unconstitutional, the challenges are to a particular section of an Act as opposed to the entire Act itself.
“The first couple of sections, which say what the penalty is for a riot, what the penalty is for unlawful assembly. I don’t see anything unconstitutional about it,” she said, adding, “I have an issue with sections 4 and 6, in particular section 6.
She said that particular section “is one I would advocate for repeal,” she added.
Section 6 states “Where the persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, or twelve or more of them, after the proclamation is made…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 every police officer….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.
It adds that if while carrying out the task that “ 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…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….”
The retired jurist said that she would support a situation like in the United States, “where persons would call upon their parliamentary representatives to make this kind of representation…before Parliament to change legislation.
“But unfortunately, we are citizens of Dominica, we do not take up that role at all to look at legislation, to advocate for certain legislation to be repealed and to be replaced. I truly believe that we need legislation to deal with public order,” she said, adding, “in any civil society, you are going to need legislation to deal with it.
“But the Riot Act, as it is, in the language that it is framed, it leaves a lot to be desired, and in particular, section 6 is unconstitutional,” she told the panel.
But Attorney General Levi Peter is supporting the legislation.
“The Riot Act is necessary to regulate and control serious disorder, destabilization, and threats to national security,” he said, adding, “I don’t think that anybody can seriously argue that it doesn’t have that characteristic to it.
“It is necessary and I think most people would accept that we have to have some kind of legislative framework which guides the law enforcement authorities and indeed those of us in society so that we know what we can do, what we are allowed to do legally and what we cannot do legally”.
Peter said he believes that “this is reflected in these provisions” of the legislation.
He said that while the United Kingdom repealed its Riot Act in 1973, “the difference here, I would submit, was that the law was repealed because it became, I don’t want to say obsolete, but it was no longer fit for purpose”.
In May this year, the DBA, in a statement regarding the events surrounding the March 19, 2025, protest against the passage of electoral reform bills in Parliament, said it witnessed the arrest and charging of numerous individuals, including political activists, as well as one of the lawyers actively representing those previously detained.
The DBA said that 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 DBA said that the Riot Act 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.
The DBA said that the Riot Act is, therefore,” one such piece of legislation that purports to restrict citizens’ constitutional right to assemble. Still, 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 DBA said that 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. It said such a clear definition is noticeably absent from Dominica’s Riot Act.
The DBA said that the question of the constitutionality of the Riot Act will eventually be determined by the Court and “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”.
and then 