It is unquestioned that the phenomenal changes wrought by the communications revolution necessitate that jurisdictions update their laws to take account of their impact on society. As such, across the world there have been, for instance, legislation to deal with 21st century “Cybercrime” in its multifarious manifestations. Thus when, in August 2016, the Government laid its “Cybercrime Bill, No 17 of 2016”, and moved that it proceed immediately to a Special Select Committee, it was welcomed by all.
In presenting the Bill to the House, Attorney General Basil Williams said the legislation addressed the creation of offences of cybercrimes and provided for penalties, investigations and prosecution of such offences. More specifically, it catered for, inter alia: illegal interception; illegal data interference of data transmission; illegal acquisition of data; illegal system interference; unauthorised receiving or granting of access to computer data; computer related forgery; computer related fraud; offences affecting critical infrastructure; identity related offences; child pornography; child luring, and violation of privacy among a slew of other offences.
The Select Committee included, from the Government benches, AG Basil Williams; Khemraj Ramjattan, Minister of Public Security; Nicolette Henry, Minister of Education; Michael Carrington and Audwin Rutherford; and from the Opposition side, Chief Whip Gail Teixeira; former Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee; former AG Anil Nandlall; and Gillian Persaud. But almost two years later, when the Bill was returned to the House for its debate and vote, a tsunami of protests has erupted over one of its clauses, which deal with the “Offences of Sedition”.
Clause 18 (1) states: “A person commits an offence of sedition if the person, whether in or out of Guyana, intentionally publishes, transmits or circulates by use of a computer system, a statement or words, either spoken or written, a text, video, image, sign, visible representation that (a) brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by the laws of Guyana.” The Bill specifies: “A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for five years.”
Even a layperson can appreciate the dangers posed to a citizen criticising the Government or its policies. In a classic example of circular reasoning, while the Bill explains, “comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means,” is not an offence, such comments must be made “without, exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection”.
Apprised of concerns on Art 18 (1) of the Bill, the AG reportedly asserted, “There is nothing wrong with the provision…the Opposition was part of the Committee…(and) sedition is already part of the law.”
The Opposition members should explain why they did not object to the clause on sedition at the committee stage; to assert they did not attend meetings is simply to acknowledge a dereliction of their duty to their constituents.
Sedition was established as far back as 1606 by the infamous Star Chamber with “seditious libel”. Truth was no defence, while intention was irrelevant, as was the actual harm (reputational or otherwise) done by the libel. Punishments for the crime included imprisonment and the loss of the offenders’ ears. As with most Common Law offences, a major problem was in the impreciseness of the charge because of the subjectivity of the elements. We are witnessing this danger in our courts right now.
Sedition was introduced by England in its colonies to stifle opposition to its totalitarian colonial rule. But even England removed the law against sedition in 2009. The then Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Claire Ward, explained: “Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences – from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today…Freedom of speech is now seen as the touchstone of democracy, and the ability of individuals to criticise the state is crucial to maintaining freedom”.
Guyana can do no less.
