Opposition attempting to rewrite their role on cybercrime legislation

…very provisions Opposition now condemns were inserted by APNU/AFC – Jagdeo

Opposition political parties are attempting to rewrite history regarding their role in the Cybercrime Act of 2018, as they now seek to condemn provisions of an Act that they themselves crafted the provisions of, and signed into law.

Over the past few weeks, several opposition members recently condemned proposal’s by the current People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) government to update the current Cybercrime Act to align it with provisions of the International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes, however many of the provisions of Cybercrime Act being condemned by opposition are provisions created by the APNU+AFC opposition during their time in government.
Notwithstanding widespread criticism over several provisions of the Cybercrime Bill before its enactment, then Minister of the Telecommunications, and former Chairperson of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Cathy Hughes, supported the then Cybercrime Bill as a “vitally important to people and citizens of all walks of life.”
Yet, in a dramatic shift, both she and her party are now spearheading calls for its repeal, citing concerns over the criminalization of libel and the perceived threats to free speech. Leader of the AFC, Nigel Hughes, husband of Cathy, has denounced the use of the law in the criminalising of libel.
However, at his weekly press conference last Thursday, Vice President, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo went to great pains to remind that the Cybercrime Act, and all provisions therein is a creation of the current opposition, enacted under the full backing of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and AFC politicians. Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo has criticized this about-face, arguing that the opposition’s attempts to shift blame for the act’s controversial provisions are disingenuous.
“The Act that they passed in 2018… they passed it with the full support of the AFC not a single dissenting voice,” Jagdeo argued. He emphasised that the very provisions the opposition now condemns—criminalizing libel—were inserted by the APNU and AFC themselves.
“Today it is heaped on our doorstep. This is part of the revision of history. They criminalised a civil offence and now say watch out this government is evil. It was done under APNU. It’s an attempt to revise history. This is dishonesty. It absolves them of the crime and then heaps the crime on the PPP now that we’re trying to pass regulations consistent with international policies. That respect people and do not infringe on their rights. Everything gets distorted in today’s context.”
He also noted that attempts to include a sedition clause were ultimately abandoned due to public pressure, underscoring the complexity of the political landscape surrounding the legislation.
“Nigel Hughes is implying that we intend to make a civil offence into a criminal one. Who passed the cybercrime act? If you look at Article 17, 18 and 19 of the cybercrime act passed under APNU+AFC in 2018 you will see exactly who criminalizes libel. In libel there is a civil remedy but now it’s also a criminal issue. They’re the ones who did this and then they add in another section about sedition,” Jagdeo reminded.
As the opposition rallies against the PPPC government’s plans, they assert that the current administration is using the Cybercrime Act to intimidate and silence dissenting voices. However, critics point out that the same politicians now voicing concerns previously ignored widespread criticism of the bill when it was introduced.
The AFC leader has also called for the cybercrime amendments in keeping with the Budapest Convention of 2001 as opposed to the UN Cybercrime Convention.
However, while both the Budapest Convention and UN Cybercrime Convention address cybercrime they have different scopes, purposes, and frameworks. The Budapest Convention primarily focuses on the criminalization of offenses related to computer systems, data, and content, while the UN Cybercrime Convention is broader in its scope seeking to establish a global framework for addressing crimes committed through ICT, including but not limited to cybercrime.
Moreover, the Budapest Convention focuses on law enforcement and crime prevention, while the UN Cybercrime Convention places more emphasis on striking a balance between fighting cybercrime and protecting human rights, reflecting diverse perspectives of individual UN member states.