The government’s proposed amendment of legislation dealing with crime is being met by criticism from some sections of society on the grounds that it contains much ambiguity.
On Thursday, the draft amendments to the Racial Hostility Act, the Criminal Laws (Offences) Act, the Evidence Act and the Prevention of Crimes Act were tabled in Parliament.
The draft amendment to the Racial Hostility Act proposes to substantially increase the penalties for offences committed under the statute and widens the definition of “record” to include any film, negative, tape or other device, so that a person who commits an offence under this act, by publication in any film, negative or tape, may be found guilty.
The proposed amendment to the Criminal Law (Offences) Act creates the specific offence of the commission of a terrorist act.
The amendment to the Evidence Act seeks to add discs, tapes, sound tracks or other devices in which sound or data are embodied, any film, negative, tape, or such other evidence, as admissible evidence in a court.
The proposed amendment to the Prevention of Crimes Act, would allow for Guyanese convicted of certain offences in a foreign state who have been deported to Guyana, to be effectively monitored by the police.
But according to the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), the amendment to the Prevention of Crimes Act is flawed, since it could make the condition of deportees very oppressive.
“The present act provides that a person convicted on indictment may be subjected to police supervision on the directions of the very court dealing with the indictment. The proposed amendment has a very serious flaw... There is no restriction on the time within which such an order of the Minister may be made.
There is therefore nothing to prevent the Minister making this order years after the offender had returned to Guyana. This offends against the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and against the interests of justice,” said GHRA’s Mike McCormack.
He added that the application for supervisory orders is open to abuse, particularly given the oppressive nature of the deportee programme in which people who have already served a penalty are dropped in, what is for many, an alien country, in which there are no supportive programmes to ensure their effective integration into society.
“While these circumstances do not justify turning to crime, rectifying the circumstances would be a much more effective remedy than adding further onerous conditions to their existence,” McCormack said.
But Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs Doodnauth Singh, through a GINA release yesterday, said that the bills, if made into law, would not infringe on the rights and freedom of citizens.
The government agency said the proposed amendments are consistent with the administration’s policy of ensuring that adequate legislation is in place to further support the law enforcement agencies’ efforts to maintain law and order and effectively fight crime.
Among those objecting to aspects of the bills were the PNC/R and the Guyana Bar Association. The GAP-WPA and ROAR called for a delay in debating the anti-crime legislation on the grounds that they were given little time to adequately study them.
But Information Liaison to the President Robert Persaud yesterday remarked:
“These groups and their spokespersons are very vocal in the media, calling on the government to do more and take firmer action against criminal elements in our society. Strangely, when the administration proposes action and institutes anti-crime initiatives, frequently, these are either rebuffed or not supported.
Congress Place and Bar Association criticisms of the anti-crime bills seem to do little about contributing to the process and more about frustrating anti-crime action and measures which the people of Guyana support.”
The PNC/R had last week said that the four bills which had been tabled in Parliament were not intended to solve the crime situation but to arm the governing party with draconian powers which would threaten civil rights.
ROAR parliamentarian, Ravi Dev yesterday told Stabroek News that the government’s handling of the issue smacked of insensitivity.
“These are matters that will affect all Guyanese and such legislation can’t be passed in the dead of the night; [it] has to be really exposed, well ventilated and there should have been a process of wider discussion,” the Parliamentarian stated.
Lawyer Nigel Hughes, like Dev and McCormack, pointed out that there needed to be a complete review of the amendment to the Evidence Act, for the purposes of updating it.
In relation to the proposed amendment to the Prevention of Crimes Act, Hughes said the bill infringed an individual’s rights, since the Minister of Home Affairs would have the power to determine the place of residence of a citizen, his rights to registration and more importantly, any restriction as he may deem fit.
With regard to the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, he said that the amendment in effect now made the death penalty available for offences which were previously classified as manslaughter.
In addition the proposed amendment would impact upon freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 146 of the Constitution of Guyana. Section 309(a), he said, imposes no restriction, qualification or limitation on the nature of the acts which may qualify as terrorist. Thus it is possible that the communication of any idea which suggests a change in the political structures of the country to federalism for example, may be regarded as a threat to the unity or integrity of Guyana.
Hughes went on to state that there exists no categorization of the equipment used or intended to be used for the defence of Guyana or in connection with any other purpose of the Government of Guyana in the proposed amendment. Did this mean, therefore, that the destruction of a cell phone used by the Chief of Staff could now be categorized as an act of terrorism?
The provisions of section 309A also collided, he considered, with the protected fundamental right of assembly and association as set out in Article 147 of the Constitution.
Dev insisted that there should be a detailed breakdown of the bill, which would, in his view, remove all uncertainties, especially the definition of terrorism.
“The bill is seeking to define what is terrorism and impose a penalty for terrorist acts and this, in itself, is something that all Guyanese need to be involved in. So there should have been a process of wider consultation and wider dissemination of what this means, because there have always been problems defining terrorism...”
“In terms of the amendment to the Evidence bill, our position in ROAR is that there ought to be a committee set up to look over this whole area and do it in an integrated fashion. We are not sure that this ad hoc measure serves Guyana well,” the party leader said, echoing McCormack’s view on that particular piece of legislation.
On the issue of monitoring deportees, Dev looked at the bill as providing a form of parole, but said that there were some ambiguities that must be fleshed out, in terms how the law must be applied.
But despite these objections, another lawyer Darshan Ramdhani told Stabroek News that based on what was transpiring in Guyana today, there was need for urgent legislation to address certain issues that could be considered dangerous.
“The criticism that the legislation presents a piecemeal amendment to the law really does not do justice to the administration’s effort to combat dangerous behaviour. Every country in the world has, from time to time, resorted to piecemeal amendment to some law or the other. The main reason to this is obvious. At certain times in society, there will be an immediate or urgent need to address certain types of conduct that are detrimental to the general good of society. So I do believe that the amendment being sought, for example, to the Evidence Act is much needed at this point in time,” the lawyer stated.