Concerns grow over proposed amendments to Cybercrime Act 

Sep 09, 2024 News

– AFC flags Govt’s move to crminalise defamation   

Kaieteur News – AFC concerned about The Alliance for Change (AFC) has expressed grave concern over the proposed amendments to the Cybercrime Act saying that these will allow the administration to criminalise defamation and censor persons online.

Former leader of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan

Speaking at the party’s weekly news conference last Friday, Former leader of AFC Khemraj Ramjattan urged that there should be no haste by the government in its attempt to counter disinformation by introducing legislation which criminalizes behaivour online. “Freedom of expression and freedom of conscience can suffer. There must be a cautious approach taken in moving forward to avoid censorship and restrictions on legitimate content.”

He noted that taking into account the government’s attitude of being “democratic centralist” their criminalization of disinformation can be used against persons who critique the government and it can further cause self-censorship, erode press freedom and the publication of opinions. Ramjattan explained that, “The United Nations has not yet agreed on substantive cybercrime provisions, noting that member countries are still negotiating. “A UN convention is expected to be adopted and finalized in the National Assembly in 2025 and Guyana will have to ratify. The haste at which the AG seems to want legislation when there is yet no approval of the United Nations on this specific matter is then rather suspicious,” Ramjattan said. “The AFC urges the PPP to bring on this important matter preferably a green paper and there after must inform its Law Reform Commission to state its position on such a matter. There after legislation should then be sent to a special select committee to scrutinize thoroughly any attempt of criminalization of activity on the internet.”

Leader of the AFC and Attorney at Law Nigel Hughes commented on the matter saying it is important that one looks at the origin of the Cybercrime Act. He said the first treaty on this was back in 2001- the Budapest Treaty and that wasn’t a treaty actually it was a convention on cybercrime.”

The convention he explained covered five areas. Those being: illegal access to a computer, illegal interception of information, data interference, system interference and misuse of devices. “Under the heading of misuse of devices it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of defamation. What the present government is attempting to do is to criminalise defamation.”

Defamation allows a person a civil remedy in the form of a suit. So if someone libels or defames another, the aggrieved party can g to the court and get damages. Hughes lamented that, “What the present government is doing is giving a criminal sanction to what in effect was a civil law, which you had to go to court. The problem with that is, is that it now becomes a tool in the arm of the state that they can use to prosecute, stifle and silence people the government wants to get rid of and there is no better case that I can refer to than the case of Sherod Duncan. Why would you want to criminalise somebody because they went to social media and called you a ‘trench crappo’?”

Hughes advised that if the terms offend you, the law provides a civil remedy whereby you can sue the offender, bringing a defamation suit against them. Making this criminal now means that the prosecution will now have a wide discretion to prosecute persons, “and invariably this has always been used as we have seen recently to silence people who either criticise the government or criticise the police force.” “We have a series of charges against Deon Bascom, we have seen what had happened to Sherod Duncan and in essence they have now criminalised what for centuries has been a civil law. There are very few countries in the world that seek to silence their citizens, because they seek to defame,” Hughes said.

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo last Thursday reassured that the amendments to the Cybercrime Act are not aimed at targeting social media commentators or ordinary citizens who air their views. He said, “Anil Nandlall made it clear what the regulations for the Cybercrime Act that was passed under APNU would entail. Now we believe in free media, we believe in people freely expressing their views on the internet.”

Jagdeo explained that his government is against censorship on the internet and promotes the people’s right to freedom of speech. However, he said that “the United Nations now has come up with model legislation about crime, crime that is perpetuated in cyberspace. So the regulations will fit into the United Nations framework of what they had defined, would be crime in cyberspace, it’s only people who do that like to extort people using you know cyber means or cyberspace to exploit people. Or people who are exploiting women.” Jagdeo reminded that while he served as President of Guyana, his government had passed a law aimed at tackling persons taking photographs of others with the intent of blackmailing them. It also looked at “people who exploit our children, like child pornography and all these things, these are important things for us.” He assured that the government will not condone such behaviour while noting that the amendments to the law are not to regulate what persons say.

• amendments, censor, criminalize, Cybercrime, online