The contribution by St James West Central Member of Parliament Mrs Marlene Malahoo Forte to the Cybercrimes Act debate deserves more than a passing nod. It raises a hard truth Jamaica can no longer avoid: Our laws are struggling to keep pace with a digital world that does not respect borders, decency, or reputations.

Before the Bill to amend the Act was approved in the House of Representatives last Tuesday, Mrs Malahoo Forte raised the issue of doctored images circulating online showing her and other legislators in handcuffs.

That is not harmless political mischief; it is reputational violence, amplified by artificial intelligence and anonymous platforms, some which operate far beyond the reach of local investigators.

When a sitting Member of Parliament can be told by law enforcement that “little can be done”, as Mrs Malahoo Forte shared, the problem is not trivial, it is structural.

She is right to argue that legislation which cannot be enforced is legislation in vain. The amendments to the Cybercrimes Act strengthen penalties and modernise offences, but they leave intact a central weakness — Jamaica’s limited ability to pursue malicious online conduct that originates overseas.

In an era in which a fabricated image can circle the globe in minutes, a law confined strictly within territorial borders offers cold comfort to its victims.

Mrs Malahoo Forte’s reference to the Jamaica Independence Act is therefore especially significant. As one of the country’s foundational constitutional instruments, it affirms Parliament’s authority to make laws for the “peace, order and good government” of Jamaica.

That authority is not as narrow as some might assume. Jamaica already exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction in carefully defined areas — terrorism, maritime security, extradition, and the enforcement of international sanctions. The legal principle is established: Where national interests or serious harm are at stake, Parliament can legislate beyond geography.

Applying that principle to cyber harm is not radical; it is logical. Digital attacks on reputation, trust, and democratic institutions can be just as damaging as physical crimes. If Parliament has the power to criminalise terrorism committed abroad it is at least worth serious consideration, whether it should also empower investigators to pursue those who deliberately fabricate and spread harmful lies about Jamaicans from foreign platforms.

That said, caution is essential. Extraterritorial laws carry risks if drafted too broadly. Overreach could chill legitimate speech, invite abuse, or place unrealistic obligations on foreign entities with no real connection to Jamaica. Any expansion of jurisdiction must therefore be precise, proportionate, and anchored in clear standards of harm, intent, and due process. In that regard, judicial oversight, international cooperation mechanisms, and respect for fundamental rights must be non-negotiable.

Mrs Malahoo Forte’s warning should not be seen as a call for reckless power, rather it is an appeal for thoughtful adaptation. The Digital Age has tilted the balance in favour of those who weaponise anonymity and technology. Ignoring that shift leaves citizens exposed and institutions weakened. Engaging it without restraint, however, risks creating new injustices.

The challenge before Parliament is to strike that balance: To use the constitutional tools Jamaica already possesses, including those afforded by the Independence Act, while resisting the temptation to legislate too far, too fast.

The problem Mrs Malahoo Forte highlights is real. The solution must be equally serious, measured, and fit for a borderless world.