Dear Editor,
This government’s recent attempt to railroad three bills by toying with the parliamentary standing orders was shameful stuff. I read the bills to understand why this step was taken. While I fully endorse the need to eradicate terrorists pronto, Guyana’s new anti-terrorism law is troubling. Compared to every anti-terror law in every developed nation, this piece of legislation offers no judicial review, oversight by the courts and the legislature, mandatory reporting to the legislative arm of the state and to various bodies, or an effective system of record-keeping. If the Americans, Canadians, French, British and others with their advanced system of civil rights find it necessary to include such vital buffers and security blankets in their law, why does this government think these measures aren’t necessary in a country like Guyana with a history of executive lawlessness?
Compare the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in Guyana’s legislation with the US Patriot Act, and Guyana’s legislation appears broader and more encompassing. The US Patriot Act distinguishes between international and domestic terrorist acts. International terrorist acts are both violent acts and acts dangerous to human life whereas domestic terrorism defines terrorist acts as acts dangerous to human life. The distinction is obviously made to deal with US citizens who are terrorists differently from international terrorists. Guyana’s legislation makes no such distinction. A major difference between Guyana’s anti-terror law and the US terror law is Guyana includes damage to property as a terrorist act while the US law does not. The US law focuses on acts that pose a danger to human life.
The DPP and police possess significant powers under the anti-terrorism act. These institutions are dominated by the executive/presidency as opposed to the legislature. At a minimum, the DPP should be an office subject to parliamentary oversight to render DPP decisions reviewable by National Assembly all-party committees. Some aspects of the bill appear to allow the citizenry to self-incriminate to their peril. The police force is the direct and first line of contact for any suspected terrorism offence. That is a telling joke for obvious reasons. Why not consider, as most countries have done, creating a separate agency or body to deal specifically with terrorist threats under this legislation, with an inbuilt quick response mechanism and critically, ensuring that agency reports to the National Assembly? The president should not have the power under Articles 59 of the proposed anti-terrorism bill to bypass the National Assembly and to declare by order any provisions of the named conventions as having the force of law. Why enact as part of an anti-terrorism bill various articles of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto 2004? The United Nations Convention against Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto 2004 is wrongly named in the proposed anti-terrorism bill. There is no such convention. ‘Transnational’ should be inserted before ‘Organized’ in order to properly name the convention. Some of the sections of these conventions being signed into law with attendant stronger obligations give reason for serious pause.
What does this bode for this country? It could spell trouble for the little democracy, freedom and dignity left. This law gives any government hell-bent on despotism a smorgasbord of options to further neutralize the struggling democratic fibre remaining in the land. It opens the country to civil rights abuses and political oppression under the guise of confronting terrorism. The definition of terrorist act in Guyana’s law specifically names intimidation by political cause as terrorism. The Patriot Act does not specify political cause in its definition. Further, the US has predominantly prosecuted criminal acts committed in a political protest as criminal but not terrorist. That is because the US sees political expression and opposition as crucial to the democratic essence of the United States of America.
Plus, the oversight mechanisms surrounding the Patriot Act ensure that the executive does not use anti-terror laws as cover for political suppression. Guyana has a huge gaping hole in this regard. This is why the death penalty for various offences in this legislation is reprehensible in the absence of embedded oversight mechanisms. An anti-terrorism law in this environment without public scrutiny is very troubling.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
