Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
By way of a consensual procedure, Guyana’s Constitution established security forces with specific structures, functions and procedures intended to entrench their positions as politically independent competent bodies able to guarantee the normal functioning of the institutions of a democratic state, including protecting the people against autocratic government. Article 197A of the Constitution provides that: ‘(1) The State’s defence and security policy shall be to defend national independence, preserve the country’s sovereignty and integrity, and guarantee the normal functioning of institutions and the security of citizens against armed aggression. (2) The Defence and Security Forces shall subordinate to national defence and security policy and owe allegiance to the Constitution and to the Nation. The oath taken by members of the Defence and Security Forces shall establish their duty to respect the Constitution.’
Now, the government intends to institutionalise a National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) whose director’s official standing shall be not less than that of the army’s Chief of Staff or the Commissioner of Police. The director shall, subject to the requirement of legal advice, be the principal adviser to the president on matters relating to national intelligence and security and shall have the authority, direction and control over NISA subject only to the president. Clause 27 of the National Intelligence and Security Agency Bill caters for other entities in the security sector whose mandates require the conduct of intelligence gathering operations to consult with NISA for the purpose of coordinating the intelligence programmes and operations of those entities. Under Clause 21, officers of NISA in the discharge of their functions will have powers of both the police and officers of the defence force. With the approval of the president, NISA may assign officers to serve as liaison officers to embassies abroad. (SN: 23/04/2023)
I am not certain what is meant by ‘subject to the requirement of legal advice’ or precisely how one can effectively and efficiently operationalise the proposed agency and how it could become the principal adviser to the president on matters relating to national intelligence and security. But there is no doubt that there will be serious comingling of apparently ‘equal’ players. One would have thought that for an institution to be comingling and functionally equitable with the existing constitutional bodies, they should be driven by similar commitments and brought into existence and managed by similar processes. This is particularly so since the drafters of the Constitution, notwithstanding providing mechanisms for general constitutional reforms, recognised the importance and special nature of the defence and security sectors and recommended a reform procedure.
197A (5) of the Constitution states that: ‘Disciplined forces commissions may be constituted by the National Assembly from time to time, as may be necessary, with powers to examine the structure and composition of the disciplined forces and make recommendations generally with the view to promoting their greater efficiency, and giving effect to the need in the public interest that the composition of the disciplined forces take account of the ethnic constituents of the population.’
Human nature hankers after the most extreme possible levels of freedom, and in social relations this can only be accomplished by way of democracy. As such, dictatorial regimes will always face resistance and will require the total subservience of the security forces. Therefore, it is not surprising the once again the regime is disregarding the Constitution. The highly autocratic and ethnically divisive behaviour of the PPP, set upon political domination with a democratic façade, has given rise to great dissatisfaction with serious security sector implications. So while the traditional security arrangements were instituted by consensual processes and directed by the Constitution to uphold it, a new agency is to be created by a partisan president and subject to his direction!
Permanent secretaries (PS) are appointed by the president as constitutionally non-political administrative heads of ministries, but we have been informed by President Ali that the PS of the Ministry of Home Affairs was on her way to China on PPP business when she was relieved of her phone and then had her visa revoked by the United States authorities. In defence, the regime has claimed that people’s lives consist of various roles and being a PPP member is one such role in the PS’s life. The leader of the PPP appears not to understand that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. A reasonable and informed observer doing business with the Ministry of Home Affairs can now justifiably doubt its capacity to make impartial individual and/or national decisions. When one accepts an important non-political office, the government should not encourage the public expression of political leanings.
Among others, the Constitution established the Police Service Commission (PSC) consisting of various interests to help and prevent partisan domination of the police service. But the regime’s disregard for the Constitution is legendary. It came unstuck in a well-documented attempt to intimidate members of the PSC to get its people appointed to senior positions in the force, but the attempt was resisted and condemned in court. What can we now expect from the director of the NISA that the PPP, with its miniscule majority, has devised and placed in a highly autocratic operational framework?
What must have caused great concern is Tacuma Ogunseye’s position at a Working People’s Alliance (WPA) meeting at Buxton a few weeks ago. Following many others, he contended that the regime is set upon developing an apartheid state in Guyana and will have to be challenged in every possible arena. The expectation, he claimed, is that since the security forces largely consist of people of African descent, they should not and will not violently confront protestors who are struggling for the human rights of particularly African people.
Considering the PPP’s treatment of the just retired Brigadier and others, what Ogunseye surmised is what that party believes and in the present political framework every effort to overcome this fear makes the situation worse! Thus, what is being proposed by the institutionalization of a NISA directed solely by a partisan president and its comingling with constitutional bodies mandated to uphold the Constitution is a boldfaced attempt by an autocratic regime to subvert constitutionality by diminishing the status of the traditional constitutional bodies and institutionally weaken their capacity to properly advise, and if need be, confront the government.