Warning about the potential for the proposed wiretapping laws to be abused, Alliance For Change (AFC) leader Raphael Trotman yesterday said his party would not support it and called for its withdrawal.

Trotman, speaking at a press briefing, also urged the government to hold wide public consultations on the proposals and to involve civil society and Caricom in the discussions. Although he reaffirmed the party’s support for the fight against crime, he was sceptical of the law being used for the national good, saying it would simply create a legal framework for practices already being conducted illegally here. He said: “This is a powerful weapon in the hands of a government that shows a propensity to disregard the constitution.”

Last month, the Postal and Telecommunications Workers Union (PTWU) registered its reservations about some sections of the bill, with union President Gillian Burton saying the rights of workers would be infringed, while their lives would be at risk. She also urged the withdrawal of the bill and public consultation.

The Interception of Telecommunication Bill 2008, which would permit the tapping of communication transmitted on public and private systems, is scheduled to be debated in the National Assembly tomorrow.

The Telecommunications (Amendment) Bill 2008, intended to regulate the trade and movement of SIM cards for security purposes, will also be debated the same day. The bills are intended to aid police in tracking and identifying suspects and they were formulated in response to the widespread use of mobile phones in major crimes recently. (Another bill, the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill 2008, has also been tabled by the government, although there is no date for it to be debated.)

Trotman, however, described the laws as signs of deliberate efforts to turn Guyana into a police state. He noted that the wiretapping proposal was discussed at a Caricom Heads of Government summit in April, but Guyana is the only member that has decided to go forward without any apparent involvement of Caricom, further supporting suspicions that there are ulterior motives for the enactment of the laws.

The wiretapping bill would sanction phone tapping, interception of emails, and other forms of electronic communication by the security forces and Trotman said the AFC could not support it in any way or form, notwithstanding any safeguards which might be proposed. “We are not convinced that there are structures in place to monitor this facility,” he said. Controversial legislation is usually referred to a select committee in order to distil the content and to get consensus, but he ruled the party out of any association with the bill. He cited Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Myanmar as places where similar laws are in place, and added that practice has shown that the laws have been used to spy on political opponents and blackmail them. And while the US Homeland Security Depart-ment has run domestic spying operations that involve wiretapping, he said the government has to seek the approval of the Congress every six months to extend the life of the law and to account for how it is using the provisions.

Trotman said the provisions of the Telecommuni-cations Bill 2008 also represent a clear and present violation of the citizens’ rights because it would allow too much disclosure of information already in the possession of the government. He added that its practical application would place a heavy burden on the suppliers and retailers of SIM cards and he said that in the local environment it would be extremely difficult to comply with the strict requirements of recording, storing and sharing the information. He also criticized the Court of Appeal (Amend-ment) Bill, which seeks to grant a right of appeal to the state in criminal matters. Based on the AFC’s research, he dubbed the provisions “a first” in the Commonwealth and other free democracies and emphasised that the party would not support any legislation considered unconstitutional and which removes the basic and fundamental right of a fair and final trial.