AG says Cabinet will look into concerns

Cyber Crime Bill outrage

– Ramjattan, Trotman at loggerheads

Due to mounting criticisms, Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams has committed to having the controversial sedition clause in the proposed Cybercrime Bill looked at, while highlighting that the Government is in no rush to have that piece of legislation passed.
While the bill holds two controversial clauses which seek to penalise persons who “attempt to bring into hatred or excite disaffection towards the Government,” Williams maintains there is no reason for the concerns expressed, as the sedition clause has always been a provision within local criminal law.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General told the media on Thursday, “We will look at it.

We will take it to the cabinet. Just like how it took two years to have it drafted, what’s the rush?”
He argued that the bill in its current form would be able to achieve its original purpose and fight cybercrimes.
Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan has said while he understands the public’s concerns, the sedition clause is necessary because sedition is part of Guyana’s existing law. He went on further to state that the clause does not prevent online users from being critical of the Government.
“We were very careful to ensure that we put a subparagraph that says if you criticize the Government it is not sedition, so we put limitations to what it is,” he said in Government’s defence.
But in a recent statement to sections of the media, Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader Raphael Trotman said the AFC is prepared to vote against the bill in the National Assembly if the sedition clause is not deleted.
“I can say that, as presently constructed, I, as Leader of the AFC, cannot support Clause 18.1 in the Bill, and will therefore be urging for an amendment; and if none is forthcoming, I will vote against it.”
In response to questions posed regarding stakeholders as well as their coalition Government partner rejecting the specific clause in the Cybercrime Bill, Williams said they were negligent.
“Everyone had ample time…The AFC also had representatives in the Special Select Committee… The fact that there has been no objection for well over two

years when everyone who’s saying no now had representatives there (means) they were all negligent. It’s poor leadership,” he explained.
Since the introduction of the legislation, many members of the public as well as several organisations have sought to criticise the clauses and Government, while calling for them to be removed from the Bill, the original purpose being to protect Guyanese and their children from the dangers of cyberspace.
On Wednesday, the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) expressed its concern over Section 18 of the Bill, which provides a structure for the charge of sedition. The GCCI believes sedition as an offence impinges on an individual’s right to criticize, and has no place in a democracy.
The Chamber is of the view that freedom of speech and expression of views through debate, discourse and discussion underpin a healthy democracy and foster a conducive environment for development. It is under these grounds they think Government should give serious consideration to removing that clause.
The Guyana Press Association (GPA) has also made calls for the removal of the offence of sedition from the Cybercrimes Bill because of the danger it presents to free speech. Prior to that, telephone giant GTT, via a correspondence, expounded similar concerns, as well as the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC).
Laid in the National Assembly in 2016, Guyana’s Cybercrimes Bill had catered for, inter alia: illegal access to a computer system; illegal interception; illegal data interference; 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.
A Special Select Committee had been working on the Bill for the past few years, and their report on the Bill was presented recently. That committee was comprised of Williams, Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan, Education Minister Nicolette Henry and parliamentarians Michael Carrington and Audwin Rutherford. The People’s Progressive Party was represented by Chief Whip Gail Teixeira and

parliamentarians Clement Rohee, Anil Nandlall and Gillian Persaud-Burton.
The party noted, however, that PPP “members of the Select Committee that met on several occasions to consider this Bill were there and were absent sometimes” while outlining that their “presence alone, just being named to that Committee, does not elevate this to support of the PPP.”