Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
By Mark DaCosta- The Alliance For Change (AFC) Leader, Nigel Hughes, an attorney-at-law, has weighed in on the proposed changes to Guyana’s Cybercrime Act, retracing the origins of the named legislation. Sharing similar concern as the party’s immediate pass leader, Khemraj Ramjattan that the act could stifle dissent and criminalise defamation, Hughes noted that the first international convention on cybercrime, the Budapest Convention, was established in 2001, addressing areas such as illegal access to computers, data interference, and misuse of devices.
According to Hughes, the misuse of devices has no connection to defamation, and he argued that the government’s attempt to criminalise defamation is a deviation from the original intent of the law.
Defamation, by definition, refers to false statements made about an individual that damage their reputation. In many jurisdictions, it is considered a civil matter, where the aggrieved party can seek compensation through the courts.
The intent to amend the legislation is primarily to target social media that Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said is “completely unregulated.” It is his view “a regulatory framework must be installed and installed very quickly to arrest this situation and the penalties for violation of this regulatory framework must be condign.”
Hughes lamented that the proposed changes would turn a civil issue into a criminal one, giving the state a powerful tool to silence critics.
“The problem with that is it now becomes a tool in the arm of the state that they can use to prosecute, stifle, and silence people the government wants to get rid of,” he remarked.
The attorney-at-law referenced the case of Sherod Duncan, who was charged after referring to a government official as a “trench crappo” on social media. Hughes advised that such matters should be resolved through civil remedies, such as defamation lawsuits, rather than criminal sanctions.
Furthermore, the lawyer warned that criminalising defamation could grant wide prosecutorial discretion, allowing the authorities to target dissenters. He pointed to recent charges against Police Sergeant Dion Bascom and noted that defamation laws had been weaponised in other cases to silence critics of the government or the police force.
In response to the AFC’s concerns, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo sought to assure the public that the proposed amendments were not intended to target social media commentators or ordinary citizens expressing their opinions. He explained that the amendments would align with the United Nations’ model legislation on cybercrime, which seeks to combat cyber-related offences such as extortion, exploitation, and child pornography.
Jagdeo further stated the government remains committed to protecting free speech and media freedom. “We believe in free media, we believe in people freely expressing their views on the internet,” he stated, emphasising that the changes would focus on curbing malicious activities in cyberspace rather than regulating citizens’ speech.
Given the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government’s history of saying one thing and operating opposite, society waits with bated breath not only for the amendments but the enforcement. Whether society supports the amendment or not, the general view is the PPP/C will use its one-seat parliamentary majority to pass the amendments.
For further reading of the UN’s Cybercrime Treaty refer:
https://news.un.org/en/interview/2024/02/1146772
