The main concern among critics, KSU included, is that this bill will protect those in power from “scrutiny, weaken democratic oversight and continue to erode public faith in institutions.”

The reform passed yesterday evening as protesters gathered outside parliament. 37 government MPs voted in favour and 30 opposition MPs voted against it.

The main point of contention is the fact that complainants can no longer go directly to a magistrate to request an inquiry but must first go to the police. It is only after six months that the complainant can seek intervention from the Criminal Court which will then decide whether to rope in a magistrate, let the police continue its work or terminate the request.

Another controversial reform to the law will make complainants pay for an inquiry found to be requested with malicious intent. Such inquiries can sometimes cost millions.

However, other contents within Bill 125 have been praised as necessary updates to an outdated law.

Earlier this week, minor amendments were implemented in the reform, among them was the removal of the Attorney General’s (AG) oversight on the appointment of court experts.

During the debate at committee stage, it was argued that the inclusion of AG reduces the magistrate’s autonomy. The appointment of experts will now be the remit of the inquiring magistrate and the Chief Justice.

What’s your take on the passing of this reform?