Following a marathon debate in the House, government last night used its majority to pass the anti-terrorism bill with the opposition abstaining from the vote after raising a number of questions about the “draconian” bill including the inclusion of the death penalty for 14 offences.
Attorney-General Basil Williams, in urging that the Anti-Terrorism and Terrorist Related Activities Bill 2015 be supported, said some of the provisions were mandated by the global anti-money laundering body, Financial Action Task Force (FATF) which has Guyana under increased surveillance.
“How else could it be in the AML/CFT Act? It was a FATF requirement and they do that because of what they call the dissuasive effect. They just want to…dissuade people who…would be terrorists. That’s why you have these fantastic kinds of fines for example,” he said.
The opposition had raised a number of questions about some provisions including the death penalty for 14 offences. Williams had laid some amendments for fines of $1.5 million together with the death penalty for some offences but after stoutly defending the provision for the fines, he did not include the amendments in the final bill. He offered no explanation as the bill was passed close to 11 pm.
Williams acknowledged that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel had questioned why the FATF would want to include a provision for a fine if a man is going to be sentenced to death.
“But the fact of the matter is we have been instructed by the unit that was left behind by the last former Attorney-General…that if you don’t stick as close to possible to the wording of the recommendations, the 40+9 recommendations especially those nine that deal with terrorists, the terrorism, they tend to reject you, they are very strict,” he said.
“As a result of that Mr Speaker, we have the situation that we have some outrageous provisions but if we don’t adhere, if we don’t implement them we are not going to be out of the process,” Williams.
He said that he does not know the bill is invasive as charged by the opposition but also raised the matter of balance in the fight against terrorists and human rights. He also argued that the death penalty was dissuasive.
Armoury
“And being dissuasive could only be one of the weapons in the armoury. Because you have to have resources and that is why you would have a lot of phone tapping, a lot of surveillance, you would have all these things and that is in the name of protecting the nation” from an extremist or persons bent on committing a terrorist act, he declared.
After the end of more than seven hours of debate, a division was called for by the government side with 31 government parliamentarians voting for the bill and 29 PPP/C members remaining silent as their names were called for the vote.
The bill seeks to criminalise terrorism in its various forms and to provide for the detection, prevention, prosecution and punishment of persons involved in terrorist activities in and outside Guyana.
The 107-page bill sets out penalties for committing a terrorist act, harbouring, accommodating, and offering financial support to a terrorist, among other offences. Many of the penalties are imprisonment for not less than 15 years and no more than 20 years. However, for a terrorist act that results in the death of another person, the penalty is death.
The bill defines “terrorist act” as “an act whether committed in or outside of Guyana which causes or is likely to cause loss of human life or serious bodily harm; damage to property; prejudice to national security or disruption of public safety including disruption in the provision of emergency services or to any computer or electronic system or to the provision of services directly related to banking, communications, infrastructure, financial services, public utilities, transportation, or other essential infrastructure and is intended to compel a government or an international organisation to do or refrain from doing any act; or intimidate the public or a section of the public, for the purpose of advancing a political, ideological or a religious cause; or any act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the Convention.”
It excludes from this definition acts which causes death or serious bodily harm to a person taking active part in armed conflict in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; or disrupts any service and is committed in pursuance of a demonstration, protest, or stoppage of work and is not intended to result in any harm referred to in the definition of “terrorist act.”
Stalks
In piloting the bill, Williams said that it arrives in the National Assembly at time when “terrorism stalks the world.” He said that it is imperative that measures be put in place to combat this scourge and stressed the importance of laws that could protect Guyanese in some way from terrorists’ acts. The bill comes in a very timely manner and the nation must show that “it sets its face against terrorism,” he declared.
PPP/C MP Clement Rohee said that his party would wholeheartedly support any bill that criminalises terrorism. However, he said that the problem lies in fulfilling the obligations. “The challenge will come afterwards,” he declared while pointing out that fulfilling obligations in treaties pose challenges to developing countries like Guyana.
He also urged that human rights issues not be overlooked and raised the question of how to strike a balance. He asserted that the safeguards that ought to come in the regulations that should accompany the bill is what the party is expecting in the not too distant future.
Notwithstanding Rohee’s comments, PPP/C Chief Whip Gail Teixeira labelled the bill “a wicked piece of legislation” and said it is incomplete and some parts contradict other provisions. She questioned the inclusion of the death penalty and declared that even the Jamaican legislation after which Guyana’s is modelled, does not include this penalty. Teixeira urged that it be sent to a select committee.
“Draconian times require draconian measures,” Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan said. He argued that the death penalty has a dissuasive effect and the country cannot be a safe haven for extremists. “We can prevent the emergence of these safe havens in a variety of ways,” he declared. He said that terrorists exploit ungoverned areas. “They take sanctuary where the laws are lacking,” the minister said. “We have to ensure that this kind of safe haven is not…here.”
The minister acknowledged that there are genuine concerns but said it is important that the bill be passed. “If more time lapses and they feel it is a safe haven they will come here,” Ramjattan declared even as he said that there must be revision of the laws going forward. He defended the inclusion of the death penalty emphasising that it has a dissuasive effect. “It is not as wicked as Madame Gail Teixeira has indicated,” he declared.
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall assailed the government on the “motley assemblage of pieces of legislation” said that it needs to be refined. While saying that the PPP/C will always support measures and bills that are required to be passed for the welfare of the country, he is concerned that the bill does not chronicle the international requirements that have to be met.
He questioned which requirements of FATF prescribe Guyana to insert in the law, offences that carry the death penalty. He urged that the bill be sent to a select committee to trim the excesses.
Nandlall pointed out that there are 14 offences in the bill that carry the death penalty and rejected Ramjattan’s argument that it has a dissuasive effect. “We are going down a path, a road that is unnecessary,” he declared. He said that Guyana will not be in a bad place if it reports to FATF next month that the bill has been sent to a select committee. The bill is highly penal and draconian, he argued. “It was an unvarnished product that you brought here,” he told Williams.
