AFC divided on contentious Cybercrime Bill

May 04, 2018 News

By Rehanna Ramsay

The Alliance For Change (AFC) appears to have divided positions on the Cybercrime Bill. Contentions over the proposed legislation were raised, after an international media watchdog group highlighted implications for the media and whistleblowers.
A report prepared by the group outlined the negative impact that the bill in its present form will have on press freedom.
According to the group, the draft cybercrime bill contains a sedition clause which could lead to the penalization of whistleblowers and media for publishing information collected ‘illegally.’
The proposed piece of legislation received widespread condemnation from a number of public figures and political leaders including the leader for the AFC, Raphael Trotman.

AFC Leader Raphael Trotman

AFC Chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan

According to Section 18 (1), a person can commit the offence whether in or out of Guyana by intentionally publishing, transmitting or circulating by use of a computer system or any other means, a statement or words, either spoken or written, a text, video, image, sign, visible representation, or other thing.
The penalty ranges from four months in prison to a life sentence where death occurs.
Trotman called for amendment to the contentious bill while noting that as Leader of the AFC, he cannot support Clause 18.1 of the Bill.
Trotman said that he “will therefore, be urging for an amendment, and if none is forthcoming, I will vote against it”.
However it appears that Trotman does not have the support of AFC‘s Chairman in this regard.
Speaking to reporters at the opening of the recent Caribbean Financial Action Task Force’s Conference for Judges and Prosecutors held at the Pegasus Hotel in Kingston yesterday, Chairman of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan said that he does not support the position to denounce the sedition clause in the impending legislation.
Ramjattan, an Attorney –at-law, Minister of Public Security and first Vice President in the Coalition Government, told the media operatives that the clause is “necessary because sedition is part of our existing law.”
Ramjattan said that while he understands the concerns expressed by members of the public, the clause does not prevent online users from being critical of the government.
The AFC Chairman explained that “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.”
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams was also asked to comment on the matter. He blamed “poor leadership” for the stance taken by AFC Leader and the parliamentary opposition.
Williams noted the Politicians are now finding fault with the impending legislation which has been around for nearly two years.
The Attorney General noted that the Bill would have already undergone the requisite process; it was sent to the Special Select Committee of Parliament and should be ready for the National Assembly.
Meanwhile, President David Granger who was also present at the event declined to comment on the issue.
Earlier this week, the AFC leader said the party’s Parliamentarians are prepared to vote against the sedition clause if it remains part of the Cybercrime Bill when it is returned to Parliament for passage.
According to Trotman, the issues surrounding the Bill were not formally discussed at the AFC National Executive Committee meeting. However, Trotman said that he took the opportunity to canvass the views of several members. He expressed confidence that his views are held by most, if not all, of the party’s executive members.
The overall thrust of the Bill is to make illegal, certain activities undertaken using a computer and the internet, such as child pornography, cyber bullying, theft of data, and revenge porn among others. However, there are concerns about aspects of the Bill, which was tabled by the Attorney General. The most contentious is Section 18 (1) (a) which indicates that a person commits the offence of sedition if he brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in Guyana.