By Ryhaan Shah
Three weeks ago, I wrote in my column that “with the advent of Internet communications, it would be difficult for Granger to control the media and the message coming out of Guyana as his People’s National Congress (PNC) predecessor Burnham did”. No sooner had I written those words that the proposed regulations for the Cyber Crimes Bill were published.
Clause 18 (1) of the Bill is causing more than a little disquiet since any computerised communication that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government” would be considered an act of sedition.
Sedition laws are archaic and went out along with monarchical rule as democratic principles gained a global foothold as the preferred method of organising the governments of modern states. We, the people, are free and even duty-bound to be critical of our duly elected government through freedoms constitutionally established for assembly, speech, written texts, and for the media.
These guaranteed freedoms are the foundation of a democracy and the media’s reporting and commentaries are crucial to holding Government accountable. If these freedoms are absent or are not allowed to function unfettered, then a country falls into the category of being an autocracy or dictatorship.
Computerised communication has opened up new avenues for free expression and most media houses have online publications while some are wholly online outlets. Rather than welcoming the communications revolution which has transformed the world in beneficial ways, the Granger Government sees it as a problem to be checked.
It is not enough that an additional clause in the Bill explains what does not constitute an offence – “comments expressing disapprobation” of the Government – since the main clause stands and is open to interpretation by a President who has, on occasion, acted on his personal perception of the law, and who also appears hellbent on bringing anyone before the courts for even the most innocuous, offhand remark – but which he deems treasonous.
In this context, Clause 18 (1) of the Cyber Crimes Bill if passed into law would give Granger legislative clout to use against opponents especially given the popularity of social media as the preferred medium of communication for most citizens. The public pushback from various individuals and groups is commendable but that the offending clause is included in the Bill, at all, speaks clearly to the intent of Granger and his Government to suppress our freedom to speak. This is an extremely dangerous move especially given the PNC’s villainous precedent on this particular issue.
Under President Burnham, the free press had to become an underground movement and people everywhere waited to get their hands-on copies of “The Catholic Standard” which bravely kept up its reporting and criticisms of Burnham whenever it managed to get paper to print. On July 14, 1979, Father Bernard Darke was brutally murdered in a case of mistaken identity by Burnham’s thugs from the House of Israel. Burnham was really after silencing the newspaper’s main reporter and editor, Father Andrew Morrison.
One year later, Working People’s Alliance Leader, Dr Walter Rodney was assassinated. This, too, was a murder with the clear intent of silencing a courageous critic of the PNC dictatorship. The Cyber Crimes Bill as it stands is a step in this very direction with Granger clearly attempting to muzzle the press and to make any criticism of him and his Government a criminal offence.
Attorney Anil Nandlall has also pointed to the inherent danger of Clause 17 of the Bill which would target emails that transmit or retransmit messages that are deemed to cause “harm to a person or damage to a computer system”.
Nandlall and the other People’s Progressive Party (PPP) members of the respective Parliamentary Subcommittee, who failed to attend every meeting, bear much responsibility for this fiasco. Perhaps they trusted that the coalition committee members would stick to the agenda to formulate a law that would deal with new criminal offences like computer hacking. A stern reminder to the PPP: you are dealing with the PNC; they nor their sycophants can be trusted.
While Telecommunications Minister Cathy Hughes chooses to berate the public for not voicing their objections earlier, she has failed to disclose whether she raised any concerns with her Cabinet colleagues when she read the Bill in 2016, and whether she stands with her AFC colleague, Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan who vows to lead the fight to keep the sedition clause intact.
The Cyber Crimes Bill as it stands is a clear and present danger to Guyana’s fledgling democracy and must be revised to reflect a full compliance with and respect for our guaranteed freedoms.
