Every so often the nation is regaled with the news that someone is being charged with some cybercrime. The charges range from calling someone a false name to making a statement that the government finds offensive.
Takuma Ogunseye hosted a programme on which someone made a comment that the government deemed inciting. The person who called into the programme said something out of frustration. Ogunseye was hosting the programme. He was charged because he said nothing, did not cut off the caller and perhaps was seen as abetting or supporting the caller.
The charge came three weeks after the broadcast suggesting that some instruction had to be passed to the police. Although Ogunseye’s home address was known to the police a wanted bulletin was issued. In the wake of that bulletin Ogunseye reported to the police. He was detained and locked up. He made his court appearance, was granted bail and he is still awaiting another day in court.
Sherod Duncan described someone as a trench crapaud and someone else as a jagabat. He too was charged with a cybercrime. His matter was dismissed because the court found that he had committed no crime.
Many others had been similarly charged. Coincidentally, all those charged happened to be people who are not aligned with the government.
Paul Slowe, the former chairperson of the Police Service Commission, reported cybercrime charges against Attorney General Anil Nandlall. There was no action by the police.
Nandlall on his television programme had described Slowe as acting like a ‘bad john’. He contended that Slowe promoted ranks without consulting the Commissioner of Police and the Police Association.
A “bad john” is a reference to “a notorious habitual violent criminal”. The term also refers to a ruffian, a hooligan or a miscreant. Slowe was never a criminal, a ruffian, a hooligan or a miscreant. He does not have a criminal record.
It was as if nothing had happened. Nandlall was not even invited for a comment by the police.
Member of Parliament Amanza Walton-Desir had also made a report of a cybercrime. To no one’s surprise, again nothing happened.
A family in Champagne, Mahaicony, was critical of government action in the community. Soon after, Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton paid a visit to the community. While there he held a meeting which was advertised.
Those who attended the meeting suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of the law. Without any complaint, a family was informed of cybercrime charges. It has since turned out that the Director of Public Prosecution did not see any violation of the law.
On Thursday, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo used his press conference to describe Mark Benschop as a raging homosexual queen. Benschop could file cybercrime charges against me for repeating what Jagdeo said.
The charge is extended to anyone who repeats or shares the offence with others. There has been no move by anyone to have Jagdeo cited for a cybercrime. And one can bet that if Benschop should seek to press charges there would be an intervention to have the charge thrown out.
There was no such consideration when Benschop was charged with treason. He never committed treason because he never sought to overthrow the government nor did he try to harm anyone.
As Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton said, Benschop never committed a crime. He lost his family and in the end his incarceration became a source of ridicule by the very person who caused him to be incarcerated.
He spent five years in jail aided by the machinations of people like Anil Nandlall and Priya Manickchand. They had moved to the High Courts to challenge the early hearing of Benschop’s appeal.
Many are of the view that the law is only for some people. Imagine a member of the Special Organised Crime Unit opted to arrest a female lawyer for advising her client. When the horror of the event became public there was a rush to mitigate the situation. And the DPP advised against charging the SOCU officer who ordered the lawyer’s arrest. Surely he was either above the law or had some immunity.
But take the case of overseas-based Guyanese Rickford Burke. He has not been in Guyana for more than two decades but he too was slapped with cybercrime charges. Some policeman sitting in the Eve Leary headquarters filed a number of charges accusing Burke of these crimes.
One cannot question the legitimacy of the charges since Burke is a Guyanese. What was interesting was the haste with which these charges were made weeks after the offences were allegedly committed.
The government went as far as to send a local policeman to serve a warrant on Burke in the United States. This unprecedented action stemmed from the fact that Burke is a fierce critic of the government. So too is Benschop.
What many do not know is that there is a civil remedy for slander and ridicule. The government is moving to make these civil matters criminal but only for critics of the government.
This is reminiscent of dictatorial countries. The law cannot be made to serve one group of people. Yet this approach seems to be working in Guyana where people are afraid to raise their voices in criticism of even people associated with the government.
Some talk of the threat of victimization, others about the acts of terrorism. One man had his butchery burnt to the ground because he happened to support the political opposition. Some spoke out at a time when there was no cybercrime legislation.
People, none less than the Vice President, have been critical of the magistrate hearing the matter into the alleged electoral fraud. The matter has not started and Vice President Jagdeo has said that this matter could go as far as the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The insinuation is that the magistrate would hand down a decision that the government or people in the government would find unfavourable. The magistrate cannot resort to the cybercrime legislation. Her professionalism is being threatened but then again, it depends on the source of the threat.
