eorgetown: The Cybercrime Bill which attracted widespread criticism and attention was Friday evening passed by the National Assembly with several amendments, including the removal of the controversial clause on sedition.
Although the Bill prior to its passage had received two Cabinet reviews, a Parliamentary Special Select Committee review, public consultations and input from experts, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) MPs urged Government to delay its passage, because the new amendments did not go far enough to protect free speech and the rights of citizens.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams who piloted the Bill noted that the issues raised about Clause 18 1 A, resulted in a decision being taken by the Cabinet to remove it. This clause covered sedition. He lamented that the Bill was in the Select Committee for almost two years, yet it appeared that the opposing side of the House failed to read the Bill’s contents, hence the move to suddenly highlight several issues of concern.
The minister reminded that in the United Kingdom, sedition was on the books for hundreds of years and any government must take measures to protect itself. He recalled that Mark Benschop and Philip Bynoe were initially charged with sedition. After Bynoe was freed, the PPP government then moved to charge with Benschop with treason. The latter was eventually pardoned after serving five years in solitary confinement.
Contrary to the Opposition’s claims, the AG said that the nation’s youths will be protected. He said that all of the proposed amendments were circulated to all MPs, hence nothing was “slipped” into the legislation unbeknownst to the Opposition. The penalties are meant to be dissuasive, he further explained and dismissed their contentions as unfounded.
The Cyber Crime Bill has had the benefit of being perused by experts, and even many of the now opposing MPs, the minister further added.
“What is good for the goose must be for the gander,” the AG stated as he also reminded of the “Spy Bill” passed by the then PPP government, which catered for the interception of calls without a warrant, unbeknownst to those being targeted. It was then that the nation realised that the right to privacy was actually removed from the Constitution, he said.
In closing as he commended the Bill, which has forty-three (43) clauses and four (4) amendments, for passage, the AG reiterated that it will serve as another shield to protect Guyana’s youth from cyber-crimes.
The Cyber Crime Bill covers a wide gamut of offences regarding the use of data, illegal devices, system interference, fraud, child pornography, sedition and using a computer system to coerce, harass, intimidate, humiliate, etc. a person.
Punishments range from multiple year jail sentences to fines up to $20 million dollars for those found guilty.
Local community watchdog, Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI), had called for the scrapping of the sedition clause in the Cybercrime Bill. Several others publicly called for the Clause to be removed, including the Opposition, Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) and local author, Ruel Johnson.
The Clause revealed a division within the Alliance For Change (AFC) with its leader, Raphael Trotman declaring that it should be removed, while party Chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan, argued for the Clause to remain part of the Bill.
In the end, Williams said that Cabinet considered the comments and decided on deleting subsection 1 (a) which was the main cause for concern.
However, the Opposition MPs called for the enter Clause to be removed, essentially warning that it opens the door for the state to restrict persons who oppose the Government through statements via cyber space.
There were also concerns about the original Clause 9 of the Bill which made the unauthorized receiving, giving or obtaining of access to electronic data an offence. Reporters Without Borders were concerned that the Clause could be used to penalise journalists and media for publishing reports based on information from a confidential source, even if the journalists had no basis to suspect that the information was illegally obtained.
You must be logged in to post a comment.