In the National Assembly today – one of too few of its meetings – the government intends to table for first reading the National Intelligence and Security Agency bill.
There are some quite startling features of this piece of legislation. First, the Director of this powerful and shadowy agency is to be appointed by the President. Not even the perfunctory Burnhamite notion of consultation has been catered for. That is an absolute non-starter and repugnant to democratic governance. Second, the appointee, who appears to have already been identified is to be equal in status to the Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force and the Commissioner of Police – a breathtaking excursion into fantasy. Whoever in this administration dreamed up of this bit of nonsense had better wake up – and soon.
If one were for the moment to play devil’s advocate and look ahead to the possible passage of this piece of legislation what is to stop President Ali’s party from using this obnoxious piece of drafting to spy on opponents, critics and routine neighbourhood gatherings all with the intent of perpetuating itself in office? Nothing. Is this another piece in the ‘One Guyana’ puzzle?
No basis has been laid for the constructing of a separate intelligence agency save and except that the ruling party may now believe that ‘Big Brother’ is its way to intimidate and target groups as has been its troubling outlook towards a number of civil society organisations and individuals since it took office in 2020.
Traditionally, intelligence gathering functions have resided in both the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) and the Guyana Police Force (GPF). At various periods of our post-Independence history these intelligence units have been mobilized for malign purposes. This was particularly so during the Burnham years.
It doesn’t mean, however, that they have not at times functioned professionally and capably when allowed to do so. One of the spectacular operations attributed to the GDF’s intelligence gathering was its interdicting of an early escapade by convicted drug lord Roger Khan prior to his full induction into the crime fight during the PPP/C’s term in office. He and his colleagues were found with weaponry and electronic equipment to track cell phones. Ironically, that led to the downgrading of the GDF intelligence function as the then PPP/C government appeared unhappy at its success.
Any establishment of a separate intelligence agency with the type of powers envisaged in this bill will severely undermine both the GDF and the GPF at a time when major efforts should be underway to boost their capacities in a range of arenas. One presumes that Prime Minister Phillips, a former Chief of Staff of the GDF, and the Leader of the House for Government Business will appreciate this.
As stated earlier, nothing has occurred here over the last three years to warrant the ideation of a separate intelligence agency. The crude attempted rigging of the 2020 elections was enabled by the capture of GECOM by the APNU+AFC government and the PPP’s ill-advised support for the feckless current chair Claudette Singh. An intelligence agency would hardly be able to defend against stupidity.
There is no evidence of any threat beyond those that have always existed in the form of organised crime, the drug trade, money laundering, human trafficking and gold smuggling and those are severe challenges that are meant to be addressed by the current security architecture.
A custom-built intelligence agency is the last thing that is needed. The government should instead focus on the strengthening of the GDF and its various units, the police force and agencies such as the Special Organised Crime Unit, the Financial Intelligence Unit and the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit.
Clauses Five and Six of this bill confer wide powers on the President and the Director without any parliamentary or other oversight and underline why this legislation is unacceptable.
Clause 5 provides for the President to give “general and special directions” to the Agency. It also provides that the President may, after consultation with the Minister or any other person the President considers appropriate, “give directions to the Director of a general or specific character regarding policy to be followed by the Agency and the Director shall give effect to those directions”.
According to Clause 6, the Director shall have the authority, direction and control over the Agency subject only to the President. The Director’s official standing shall be equivalent to a position not less than a Chief of Staff or Commissioner of Police. The Director shall, subject to the requirement of legal advice, be the Principal adviser to the President on matters relating to the provisions of this Act.
There are other absurdities in the bill. Clause 24 provides for the provision of information by public bodies to the Agency on request by the Director notwithstanding the Access to Information Act 2011 or any other law. How is one to trust or hold the Director accountable for the custody of such information?
Clause 25 provides that for the purposes of the Access to Information Act 2011 the Agency shall not be regarded as a public authority.
Clause 26 provides for the Agency to be kept apprised by entities in the security sector with all “relevant and timely information and intelligence relating to national security interest”.
Under Clause 32, the Director with the approval of the President may assign officers of the Agency to serve as liaison officers to embassies abroad, when necessary for the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the Agency pursuant to this Act. Are we sending people overseas to spy on their fellow Guyanese or become involved in international intrigue?
The architects of this bill should put aside Ludlum, le Carré and Forsyth for the while and ruminate on more parochial conundrums like why the phone of a Permanent Secretary was seized by US authorities and what it all means for the image of this government.
