– as concerns raised over capacity to fully support venture
By Jarryl Bryan
The Witness Protection Bill 2017, one of two pieces of legislation designed to encourage and protect whistleblowers, was passed on Friday in the National Assembly.
According to the parliamentary Opposition, however, it is a deficient bill coming at a time when the institutional capacity to support same is lacking.
The Witness Protection Bill being debated in the National Assembly
In his presentation, Opposition Parliamentarian Odinga Lumumba argued that the bill is being tabled at a time when Guyana does not have the capacity to support the bill’s provisions. He questioned whether there are provisions to fund relocated witnesses, or even to facilitate the integration of juvenile participants of the programme into the school system.
Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman acknowledged the concerns raised by Lumumba, but noted that time is of the essence with the oil industry impending. According to the minister, with the coming of oil, new threats would arise, and the Government could not wait.
“This bill is part of the continuum towards (regional security). We will be protecting witnesses from a certain category of crime when violence or the threat of violence is made,” Trotman explained in his presentation.
He referred to the current regional security status, where legislation must be put in place that will foster regional cooperation. Trotman also noted that if one refers to witness protection programmes in the United States and other jurisdictions, no programme is perfect.
On the matter of financing for the Witness Protection Programme, Trotman expressed hope in Finance Minister Winston Jordan handling this.
“Copy and paste”
Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira categorised the bill as another work of “copy and paste”. According to Teixeira, the original bill the former administration drafted in 2006 has returned to the house 11 years later with little to no changes.
Teixeira noted that there are even omissions when compared to the previous bill. While she stressed that in principle the PPP support bills offering protection to whistleblowers and witnesses, she said that much more work could have been done on this bill. As such, she argued for the bill to be sent to a select committee.
But according to Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams, some flaws pointed out by the Opposition are actually not reflective of the bill’s contents. He refuted one charge from the Opposition — that excessive Government oversight had been put into the witness protection programme.
Williams insisted that he has no operational or managerial role in relation to the bill, while the President can only review petitions from a participant who is cut from the programme. In light of this, the question was put, and the bill was passed in the National Assembly.
The bill is expected to complement the Protected Disclosures Bill which had been passed the day previous.
The bill
Part VI of the long-awaited bill binds anyone, including participants or former participants, from disclosing information in relation to the programme. The penalty for breaching this provision is a $1 million fine and 10 years in prison.
According to Section 20 (1), this law applies to anyone who, without lawful authority, reveals information about the identity or location of someone who had participated in the witness protection programme which can compromise that person’s safety.
Section 20 (2) stipulates that someone who had undergone assessment to be considered for inclusion in the programme is barred from revealing their participation. They also cannot provide information as to the modus operandi of the programme.
The Witness Protection Bill makes provision for an administrative centre which would handle identity changes. The bill also allows for the centre to withdraw this protection and restore the identity of the former participant, in which case he or she is allowed 28 days to apply to the President of Guyana for a review of the centre’s decision.
Lack of witnesses
The Police have for years complained about difficulties with certain crimes, owing to the lack of witnesses. Some have posited that crimes are recorded as unsolved or remain a mystery possibly because witnesses are not brave enough to testify, or they are afraid to be held accountable for someone’s sentencing.
At a recent seminar, Principal Parliamentary Counsel Joann Bond pointed out that the Witness Protection Programme is designed to protect persons involved in both civil and criminal matters.
The administrative centre, she had explained, would then collaborate with the Head of State, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and the Commissioner of Police.
