Guyana passes wiretapping law
Opposition parties unsupportive…
By Stanford Conway
Editor-in-Chief-SKNVibes.com
 |
| Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee |
GEORGETOWN, Guyana – DESPITE the withholding of support by the two main opposition parties, the Interception of Communication Bill 2008 which legalises the employment of wiretapping in Guyana was passed in the National Assembly last week Friday evening.
According to news coming out of the South American country, members of the two main opposition parties, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and the Alliance for Change (AFC), were together engaged in a heated debate with the government for over five hours, condemning the Bill as being unconstitutional, an invasion of privacy, abuse of the law and misuse of authority.
The Bill was tabled by Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, who, according to the Stabroek News, told the house that the law is intended to help the security forces to adapt to the increasing sophistication of methods used by criminals.
Stabroek News further noted Rohee was aware of the controversy over the proposed law, but sought to allay fears and anticipated arguments about its legality by saying that a careful balance is found in Article 146 of the Constitution, which protects a citizen’s right to freedom of expression, albeit with provisos that include national defence and public safety.
He also emphasised the role of judges in the issuance of warrants for wiretaps. “At every stage of the process, the court has a firm
 |
| Leader of the PNCR Robert Corbin |
grip,” he said, though acknowledging exceptions in the case of national emergencies or in cases where approval for a warrant is impractical due to urgency, a proviso that incited a lot of opposition concern about the potential for the abuse of the law.
“I don’t have a crystal ball to predict if this Bill, when it becomes law, will be abused,” he said, but assured that the safeguards would be in place to protect citizens. He also said the government’s commitments to CARICOM were being met, while OECS nations are currently moving ahead with similar laws.
According to the Guyana Chronicle, Minister Rohee explained that an amendment to the legislation would protect the identity of technical experts involved by persons presenting their evidence on a camera.
He also informed that if anyone beaches the law, the court has the authority to forfeit the device used for the purpose of intercepting data, and arrangement would also be in place to ensure the confidentiality of the information that is intercepted.
 |
|
Leader of the AFC Raphael Trotman
|
According to the act, a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission could be subjected to a summary conviction of a fine not exceeding $5M and imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years; and the unauthorised disclosure of an application or existence of a warrant will attract similar sanctions.
The warrant can be issued for a period not exceeding 90 days and may be renewed.
The legislation will give power to the Commissioner of Police, Chief-of-Staff of the Guyana Defence Force and the Commissioner-General of the Guyana Revenue Authority to apply to a judge to direct the authorities at the country’s telecommunications providers – GT&T and Digicel – to intercept the communication of a person(s) without his/her knowledge.
The Guyana Chronicle stated that leader of the PNCR Robert Corbin condemned the Bill and noted the constitution was violated and trampled upon for years, and that the safeguards in the Bill were meaningless in the light of the repeated flagrant violations.
“Wire tapping in law is illegal,” Corbin added, “yet we saw a Commissioner of Police’s phone being tapped.” He said the Bill was suspicious and it was dangerous to give such power to the current administration.
The AFC Parliamentarians, according to the Stabroek News, said the Bill represented an erosion of civil rights, similar to situations in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Uganda and even the US where such laws have been heavily criticised.
Leader of the AFC, Raphael Trotman, said the Bill could be abused and the constitutional rights of citizens would be threatened and violated.
“It would have been more palatable to the AFC if this Bill was being passed simultaneously in the various CARICOM territories…this does not augur well for good neighborly relations,” the Guyana Chronicle quoted him as saying. ~~Adz:Right~~
Trotman argued that the public confidence in the security agencies is at an all time low and he expressed concern that the Bill would be used against political opponents at some time.
However, in support of the Minister of Home Affairs, the ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic Member of Parliament, Anil Nandlall, noted that internationally the is Bill similar to some in the United States 1978 in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Money Laundering Control Act 1986, the Bank Secrecy Act 1986 and after September 11, 2001, the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
“We believe that to combat the level of criminality, we need to improve our capability in crime. We need to improve our investigative capabilities and legal systems...,” Nandlall said.
He also stated that Guyana could not ignore the advances made in the technological world.
Further support came from Minister of Labour Manzoor Nadir, who observed that the Bill would enable the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to ensure the security of the people of the country, adding “this piece of legislation will serve us extremely well”.
Guyana News