The Witness Protection Bill needs careful revision

Nov 22, 2017 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
The Attorney General and Minister for Legal Affairs Mr Basil Williams recently tabled a Protection Disclosures Bill and the Witness Protection Bill. These Bills are meant to encourage persons coming forward with what they know or have witnessed in criminal proceedings.
While this is a good bill and worthy of its institution into the Guyanese society however, I am very doubtful whether anyone would take the Attorney General seriously. Reasons being, the People of this country do not, and I repeat, do not in any shape or form trust this government to adequately handle their private and personal revelations, especially in the light of recent occurrences with state apparatus such as the police.
The wording of this bill speaks to a government who is hunting around desperately seeking all the information they can get on poor unsuspecting citizens so that they can in turn humiliate and illegally prosecute them.
The history we share in this country between governmental set-ups and ordinary citizens coming out as whistleblowers is very morbid to say the least. The most recent incident being the horrible death of Mr Godfrey Scipio. His death, or should I say, his murder was no accident, the sequence of events are too coincidental.
This is a serious indictment on the police, who are supposed to be the guardians of our confidentiality. When these things happen the ordinary citizen would not want to venture out on a limb to furnish any information to the police. They would rather stay quiet than be branded traitor or snitch. Being a whistleblower means that one’s life can very well be on the line. Citizens would rather stay quiet than be another statistic in this long list of persons who dare come forward with valuable information.
And you cannot blame them for this because when you view the way peace officers, members of their own ranks, were treated during the crime spree, you get the true picture as to how rotten and downright murderous those whom we put our trust and confidence in can be.
But for the revelation and certain capture of a notorious criminal in turn, how cheap another Guyanese’s life can be. Kill him! He talks too much! Or as in the case of the “Fineman” years, those officers met their demise because they dared step out to curb the criminal rampaging gang. So, persons would be extremely cautious if not silent towards any form of whistleblowing.
The question keeps coming: how were the criminals able to get classified information about the movements of the police? The answer comes back they were granted that privilege from rogues and criminals, some of whom are still in the force. So heaven help us if we are ever caught in that snare of being a whistleblower.
Or are we witnessing another SOCU and SARA Witch Hunting Expedition? Yes, you are tempted to question this tight governmental control of one’s information. Can we be assured that this is not information used by the government to get into private citizens’ lives or to expose them to untold character assassination, or even worse?
If you take a close look at SOCU and SARA you get my point, these are now state apparatuses meant to seek out information on the Opposition, a clear mandate given by the government, which is a violation of its charter. What a horrible mess they have made of people’s lives with this executive lawlessness of SOCU. Guyanese are wary of this new move.
We have witnessed the harassment of ordinary citizens under the pretext of state asset recovery or white collar crimes committed against the state, when in essence it was a brutal witch hunt in the making. The only difference this time is that the state would have corralled you into giving evidence against yourself. Interesting strategy. So, people would see this as another snare set up by the Government to entrap them, then cut them loose to the wiles of a certain select group of corrupt and criminal elements, which is a dangerous place to be. We are witnessing another chapter in the makings of a police state.
In closing, I make reference to the last paragraph of Mr Williams’s Bill which states that “The Bill also provides that the participant has 28 days after receiving notification from the centre, in regard to either the termination of protection or assistance or both or where there is a decision to restore the participant’s former identity, to apply to The President for a review of the decision and The President should allow him a reasonable opportunity to state his case.”
Now, my question is: the participant has to apply to “The President”, which president is he referring to, The President of The Republic of Guyana? Then it behooves us to believe that all powers are vested in the hands of a political leader, which defeats the purpose of the bill. Why should so much power be in the hands of The President? Isn’t this opening up the floodgates of the state controlling our lives at every turn?
Matters of such a sensitive and delicate nature should be out of government’s control. Such information should be free of state interference, there should be a distinct separation of the judiciary (which such matters should come under) and the state apparatus. If any witness protection or whistleblowers bill should be made into law, we would be grateful that an autonomous body handle our affairs.
Neil Adams

---

---