Parliament amends law to impose more serious penalties for criminals wearing masks  

Jun 03, 2025 News

---

Kaieteur News- Parliament on Monday approved amendments to Criminal Law Miscellaneous Bill 2025 to allow for more grave penalties to be imposed on persons committing crimes while wearing masks.

The amendments were passed following contributions from Members of Parliament (MP)s on both sides of the House. In his presentation, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall SC noted that the Bill is both necessary and reasonable to deter criminal behaviour, ensure public safety and aid law enforcement.

“Recently, our country has experienced a surge in a certain type of criminal activities committed by persons wearing masks or other disguises…,” Nandlall stated.

According to Nandlall, the misuse of facial coverings for criminal purposes undermines public safety and security. To address the issue, he said that the Criminal Law Miscellaneous Bill 2025 will now prohibit the wearing of masks or disguises to commit any offence specified under the Act.

“Mr. Speaker, one of the primary objectives of the bill is deterrence. When individuals are made aware that concealing their identity during the commission of a crime will result in additional charges and harsher penalties; they may be less likely to engage in such behaviour.”

“Criminalising the act of concealing one’s identity while committing an offence aids law enforcement in more swiftly identifying and apprehending the offender. The Bill therefore sends a clear message that anonymity is not a shield for committing crime”

Alluding to a similar legislation passed by the House of Commons in Canada, the Attorney General stressed that masked criminals are met with very serious penalties—“they can be jailed for up to 10 years for concealing their identities” during criminal activities.

“Guyana recently experienced protests where some of the protested, menaced robbed looted, vandalized and destroyed businesses and public properties while covering their faces with no other reason than to avoid social recognition.”

Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Amanza Walton-Desir, noted that while the opposition has no difficulty supporting the amendment which adds an aggravating element to existing offences, the amendments should also apply to the wearing of masks by private security personnel. Walton-Desir asserted, “We can’t on one hand criminalise masked civilians who commit felonies and on the other hand turn a blind eye to groups of men with an unclear mandate seemingly under the guise of legality also roaming the streets wearing ski masks and balaclavas.”

“And I had asked or I had attempted to ask whether in the context of the Private Security Services Act if the wearing of ski masks or balaclavas had been approved by the authorities, for these security firms that are palavering around our country, covering  their faces to avoid social recognition?” she questioned.  “Just recently, the country saw a group of masked men from a particular security firm rolling up to a crowd of protestors with guns drawn… Mr. Speaker who oversees them holds them accountable when the breach and violate the rights of citizens.”

To this end, Walton-Desir called on the Parliament to review the legal operations for private security personnel. “I fear that this is a slow creep of a parallel security force, we saw footage of them instructing the police what to do and of them firing in the air indiscriminately. This is concerning to the people children. These security forces operate in this country with impunity and we, Mr. Speaker have a duty to pass laws…”

As such, Walton- Desir made recommendations for regulation revision of private security firms which must include the prohibition of face covering for security personnel in public spaces.”

Government MP, Sanjeev Datadin in his contribution to the debate noted that amendments while not explicitly mentioning security personnel, applies to anyone who wears a mask while committing a crime. According to Datadin, for such crimes, by way of amendment, there is a larger fine of one to five hundred thousand dollars and a larger term of imprisonment which it attracts of not less than one year and not more than five years.”

“Anyone who wears a mask and breaks the law will be subject to an aggravating factor whether they are from a private security firm or not,” Datadin added. Opposition MP and former Minister of Home Affairs, Khemraj Ramjattan in his support for the amendments said it is important to make a prohibition to security.

Ramjattan asked the House to take into consideration “the extraordinarily legitimate critique made by Walton-Desir. “Because if we’re to look at why this Bill came now, it had a lot to do with the riotous conduct of people recently and in conduct of those riots, there were people hiding their identity and also as she was saying, persons in security forces in masks,” Ramjattan asserted.

“Why not go a little further and seek some prohibition for private security firm…Why do they have to wear masks…?” Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot come here to support a half measure when the glass is full, it would be important to also make a prohibition for private security forces,” Ramjattan said stressing that the point should not be ignored.

---

---