A contentious law that will sanction wiretapping as a tool in the fight against crime was passed in the National Assembly last night after a fiery debate weighing the need for increased protection against the potential trampling of the rights of citizens.
Robert Corbin
The government played up the Interception of Communications Bill 2008 as a major initiative to enhance intelligence gathering by the security forces, while members of the main opposition PNCR-1G and the AFC withheld support because of serious reservations about its constitutionality, its potential for abuse by the state and the absence of accompanying provisions for oversight. A major concern was also the lack of wide consultation on the legislation, in light of its reach. Although similar concerns were raised about the Telecommunications (Amendment) Bill 2008, intended to aid the tracking and identifying of persons in possession of the cellular phone devices, it was also passed during yesterday’s sitting with the guarded support of the PNCR-1G. The AFC did not support either bill, saying that they represented an erosion of civil rights, similar to situations in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Uganda and even the US where such laws have been heavily criticised.
Members from the two sides of the house butted heads for a little more than five hours and after a shouting match led to a brief suspension of the proceedings PNCR-1G MPs walked out of the parliamentary chamber shortly before the wiretapping bill was passed. It received its final reading around 10.35 pm, after an anti-climactic few minutes were spent sorting out amendments that were approved.
The laws were formulated in response to the widespread use of mobile phones in the planning and commission of major crimes. The wiretapping law will effectively prohibit the interception of communication unless a warrant is issued by a judge based on an application. Intercepted communication obtained on a warrant will also be made admissible in any criminal proceedings.
Government members argued the absence of the law was one of the reasons why it was difficult to do anything about the illegal tapping of former Police Commissioner Winston Felix’s phone, which created a scandal when his private calls were released to the public – a situation that was cited by several opposition speakers who bemoaned the fact Felix ended up facing the brunt of the resulting persecution.
The spying equipment found in a truck at Good Hope belonging to accused drug trafficker Roger Khan was also used as an example of ongoing domestic spying during the debate.
Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee told the house that the law is intended to help the security forces to adapt to the increasing sophistication of methods used by criminals. He was aware of the controversy over the proposed law, but sought to allay fears and anticipated arguments about its legality by saying that a careful balance is found in Article 146 of the Constitution, which protects a citizen’s right to freedom of expression, albeit with provisos that include national defence and public safety. He also emphasised the role of judges in the issuance of warrants for wiretaps. “At every stage of the process, the court has a firm grip,” he said, though acknowledging exceptions in the case of national emergencies or in cases where approval for a warrant is impractical due to urgency, a proviso that incited a lot of opposition concern about the potential for the abuse of the law.
“I don’t have a crystal ball to predict if this bill, when it becomes law, will be abused,” he said, but assured that the safeguards would be in place to protect citizens. He also said the government’s commitments to Caricom were being met, while OECS nations are currently moving ahead with similar laws.
PNCR leader Robert Corbin was disappointed that the bill was not sent to a special select committee, a practice negotiated between the parties for the treatment of controversial legislation. He called it a flimsy law, and worried that it would see the creation of spy offices at telecommunication providers GT&T and Digicel, who he said would be burdened by the obligations under the law. He situated fears over the law’s application in the context of what he described as the regular breach of the law by state agents like the police as well as the administration itself, right up to the Office of the President.
(He cited the arrest and detention of young men in many villages -a frequent complaint of his party -as well as the OP’s failure to put lottery funds into the consolidated fund as is required by law -a breach raised by the Auditor General in the past.) As a result, Corbin dismissed the government’s safeguards as meaningless and described the law as very suspect in the current landscape.
Thin line
He also said there was a thin line between protection and privacy, a point that was also raised by AFC leader Raphael Trotman, who expressed grave doubts over the government’s sincerity about the need for the law. He and fellow AFC MP David Patterson stayed behind after the opposition walkout. He said while his party supported advances in policing to meet the evolution of crime, it should not be done at the violation of citizen’s rights. “Our leaders will be afraid to speak their minds,” he said. Trotman also lamented the government’s refusal to cede “political space” in response to the widespread concerns about the proposals.
He also reiterated his qualms about the government moving ahead before other Caricom member states, which considered enacting the legislation earlier this year at a special Heads of Government summit on security. He said if the other territories, which he said have hesitated because of concerns in their respective jurisdictions, went ahead the law might have been more palatable. He questioned the speed to enact the law, stressing that lawmakers have a duty to consult with the people and ensure that the law would not interfere with their rights. “We are not the law,” he said, “We are the guardians of the law.”
According to the law, a warrant will authorise the tapping of communication transmitted from a private or public system to or from one or more addresses listed in the warrant. The warrant can be issued for a period not exceeding 90 days and may be renewed. Once a warrant is issued under this section a written application and affidavit would have to be provided within 72 hours of the issuing of the warrant.
The bill would also permit as directed by the minister responsible for national security the disclosure of the intercept to a foreign government or agency of such government where there exists an agreement for the mutual exchange of information. The unauthorized disclosure of intercepted information can lead to a fine not exceeding $5M and imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
Among the amendments to the bill that Rohee introduced was a provision for the in-court evidence of technical experts working for telecommunications providers to be held in camera in order to protect their identities. He said the new section was intended to address concerns that were ventilated in the public. The Postal and Telecommunications Workers Union (PTWU) expressed concerns over the law putting the lives of its members at risk, though Rohee did not name the union in his presentation.
A motion in the name of PNCR-1G MP Aubrey Norton, on torture allegations against members of the army that was also scheduled for debate was postponed after the protracted debate on the two bills.
Before the end of proceedings, Rohee complained about the politicising of the bill and he cited a section of the law to justify the detention of suspects to rebut Corbin’s comments about the police detaining people without cause, sparking uproar in the opposition benches. Corbin quickly accused Rohee of misrepresenting him and shouting match ensued, leading Speaker Ralph Ramkarran to call for a 10-minute suspension just minutes after he had agreed to extend the sitting to allow the completion of debate on the bill. Corbin later apologised and walked out afterwards, followed by the other PNCR-1G members (except Norton, whose motion was listed next on the order paper).
PNCR-1G MP Debra Backer later explained that the walkout was as a result of the “insensitive and cavalier statements” made by the minister to justify the arrest of innocent people. She said that even if the law was used, it clearly stated that there had to be “reasonable cause” to arrest them and very often this was not the case.
“On many occasions the police arrest persons on Friday evenings and subsequently release them on Monday without ever charging them”, she said. “And the statistics show that the majority of persons that suffer this fate are young men of African descent. Backer, however, said that the party will most likely be at the next sitting of the National Assembly.
I wonder if the police will wire tapp some Ministers phone and email??Or was it established for just a specific group of individuals.
I wonder if the police will wiretap all opposition phones and emails too:::
Are the opposition parties really needed in parliment??
Yes:::They must learn how democracy works……
They will all cry!! get a couple more laws in pro of the Nation, and pass them all.
Will the Roosters crow?
think about good things and you do not have to worry about wiretapping
More intrusive tools for cynical hands. If only we had ANY faith that this will be used justly and responsibly.
“I don’t have a crystal ball to predict if this bill, when it becomes law, will be abused,” –Home Affairs Minister, already not responsible.
‘..He also emphasised the role of judges in the issuance of warrants for wiretaps. “At every stage of the process, the court has a firm grip,” …’ –Judges, and their Attorney Generals, are appointed. None are elected by the people.
“We are not the law,” he said, “We are the guardians of the law.” –God, how I wish this held true.
Expect this bill to be used more for spying than what it was supposedly designed for – the prevention thereof.
And expect warrants to be the next ‘hottest thing’ on the market.
…Expect this bill to be used PRIMARILY FOR SPYING, RATHER THAN ANY prevention thereof..
Sorry.
i aint want no fone and the only email i sending is here, let them see how criminal these blogs are…..hahahahahaha…hahahahah..those fools.
Johan—U got wire tapping up to your gill in the very US where U live….
This law is important, as we have seen in the recent past how phone tapping can contribute to the apprehension of known killers. It also states that a Judge has to issue a warrant before certain phone lines are being tapped, so let us say if tomorrow a “Fineman” pops up or an army general on the run decides to do mischief, and it is suspected that they are taking instructions from Sophia, then this law can be used to protect the lives of innocent people.
No doubt some people’s conversation would be tapped and so on, but weighing the pros against the cons, especially when it comes to putting a check on criminal activities, it is welcome, not forgetting that GT&T employees have always been known to tap into peoples’ conversations. Those men who sit next to those phone boxes in your villages and in the Telephone Exchanges have always listened to your conversations. Certain things must not be said on the phone. The FBI, CIA, Immigration Departments and so on in developed countries have been tapping peoples’ phones all the time, so this is nothing new. Too bad the law does not allow the tapping of phone lines of corrupt public officers and suspected drug dealers.
The Politicians in Guyana see everything as a race issue. I disagree completely with Debora Backer when she says that most of the men thrown into the lock-ups on Friday are of African descent. Yes, the police is known to do this, but they do not target Blacks only.
Leo Rojo
GTRL these are your words “too bad the law does not allow the tapping of phone lines of corrupt public officers and suspected drug dealers” whereas the media report said “The laws were formulated in response to the widespread use of mobile phones in the planning and commission of major crimes”.
Am I to understand that “corrupt public officers and suspect drug dealers” do not commit major crimes and are therefore not considered here?
Even in civilised societies there is a risk of these laws being abused, therefore, given the wanton lawlessness that goes on in Guyana I have absolutely no confidence in this, unless there is proper oversight ………….. sorry
We have situations where senior ministers in government, “friends of this administration”, senior police officers, “embattled businessmen” etc. are all fingered in shady business and absolutely nothing is done so it’s hard trying to convince us that this equipment will not be targeted against those who dare oppose the “powers”……………. Who are they Kidding?
PS. But of course, there will always be those who choose to live in a fool’s paradise.
There is no need for parliament to pass a wiretapping bill,
the administration had approved of this years ago, why fight
them PNC and AFC.
Ask MP Basil Williams and Former Commissioner of Police
Winston Felex, Roger Khan get the equipments with the
blessings of the PPP Gov’t.
aywye….sounds familiar……
just like gregory smith got his license from PNC to use a transmitter for BOMB MAKEING, POOR WALTER WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME
1. Who will be targeted under this legislation?
a. Dangerous criminal elements?
b. Criminal suspects?
c. Police and army officials?
d. PNC officials?
e. Civil and public service employees capable of leaking inside information to the private media that government dones’t want leaked, but which the public has a right to know anyway?
f. Media houses and operatives?
2. Who will be authorized to conduct eavesdropping exercises?
a. The police?
b. The army?
c. A special eavesdropping unit?
3. Who makes a determination as to the next step in event an exercise detects something abnormal?
a. The police?
b. The army?
c. The President (National Security Minister) or the Home Affairs Minister? (PREDICTION: If this legislation allows use of eavesdropping equipment and the President makes his private decisions after getting information recorded, the same way he made his private decisions after getting results of polygraph tests to fire CANU officers, the country is going to enter a phase of more chaos!)
4. Given the President is concerned about his government’s image abroad, will eavesdropping that detect conversations critical of government be used as reasons for retaliation and vindictiveness against citizens?
5. What are the chances of elements sympathetic to the political opposition engaging in eavesdropping exercises of their own, and what will be government’s reaction?
6. Will government be using the same eavesdropping equipment the Good Hope Trio got caught with and which equipment supposedly was used to eavesdrop on the former top cop and a top PNC official? Or will it be buying a new one? If so, from which source?
7. What is the disposition of the eavesdropping equipment the government seized from the Good Hope Trio, only to have it released for illegal use, and on which Dr. Roger Luncheon and Ronald Gajraj spoke of knowing as being used and being left in the possession of its owners?
Wiretapping is and was already going on and it was used in the most vindictive way….will they wiretapp the foriegn embassies….this law is for use against anyone who is not PPP.
Very valid questions my compatriot. I PRAY my brothers & sisters awake & see the light.
Boohoo ho, sniff, sniff – You already answer all the questions – sniff, hic sniff -and didn’t leave any for me to answer! You no fair!!!!!
Did anyone remember about the ban on tinted windows on vehicles and how that was supposed to reduce crime. I wonder if this new development will have the same success.
I remember that tint ban – cost me thousands in wasted tint, and damages to the heating element on the rear windscreen of my newly bought Corolla. The crime wave continued to escalate after that ban and just kept going to what it is today.
Remember also the call for lights on the sea wall? A few were installed, and nothing changed for the better. (Except maybe that hilarious incident when a famous cricketer pointed a gun at a cop)
They wanted to see into cars, as now they want to hear your private conversations. Don’t expect things to improve as a result of this new law either.
It is my firm conviction that crime in Guyana is being NURTURED. It is the only way it could exist as it does in a nation of less than a million people who are nearly all clumped along the coast line.
“Corbin sees ‘spy offices’”…Corbin cant see past his nose.