Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Nagamootoo go head to head over Anti-Terrorism Bill

Williams, Nandlall, Teixeira & Nagamootoo go head to head over Anti-Terrorism Bill

December 17, 2015 5:25 pm Category: latest news A+ /A-

By Jomo Paul

Attorney General, Basil Williams

Attorney General, Basil Williams

[www.inewsguyana.com] – Attorney General, Basil Williams says that despite wide reports in the media, there were consultations on the Anti-terrorism Bill that was read for a first time in the National Assembly on December 17.

The Private Sector Commission (PSC) and the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) made scathing criticisms against government, alleging that the APNU+AFC administration failed to consult on the new legislation.

Before Williams rose to make his statement, Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira had blasted the government for “bulldozing” democracy.

“This is a travesty, the government cannot state what is the emergency with passing these Bills,” said the Chief Whip later adding, “We expect the government will do as they like to do – you got the majority so bulldoze it through.”

She stated that the Government has not been able to provide any reason for wanting the Bills to go through Parliament in one sitting.

PPP Parliamentarian, Gail Teixeira

PPP Parliamentarian, Gail Teixeira

“He can spin; he’s a spin doctor. I was expecting some spinning but he ain’t even spin; he just read the motion and sit down…It is a parliamentary travesty…we object sir, we object most strenuously,” she stated, referring to Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo.

She then called on the Prime Minister to “do the honorable thing as the leader of this house and withdraw the motion.”

However, AG Williams later rose on the floor and stated that several bodies in Guyana were consulted on the Bill. Those bodies include but are not limited to the Commissioner of Police, the Guyana Revenue Authority, PSC, the Central Islamic Association of Guyana (CIOG) and the Guyana Bar Association.

The Attorney General stated that those Associations were emailed with a copy of the Bill and asked to offer comments since July 5, 2015.

Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo

Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo

“Everything is brand new to them where democracy is concerned – this is not no old Bill or unfamiliar Bill – this is a PPP Bill…It has 58 clauses and only two clauses are relevant to the process so all the other clauses were introduced by the Honorable Member Mr Rohee; that is why it is the Rohee Bill,” said Williams.

He also explained the government’s rush to pass the Bills through Parliament, noting that Guyana has to comply with certain regulations in the Americas Regional Review Group of the international financial regime monitoring body.

“So Mr Speaker, this Bill has to pass before the end of the year,” said Williams adding “We have sufficient justification to do the people’s business and not cause any mayhem in Guyana.”

He said the Government would not allow the Opposition to stymie Government’s approaches to regulate Guyana under the international financial regime.

“All it was, was a great hoax,” he said referring to claims of non-consultation.

Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall later retorted that “sending off some emails to selected organizations,” does not amount to consultations.

“Today they are telling the GHRA and they are telling the private sector that they are not entitled to two seconds of consultations…this approach is totally inconsistent with what they advocated for in the Opposition, it is against the constitution, it is undemocratic, it is authoritarian,” said Nandlall.

Former AG, Anil Nandlall

Former AG, Anil Nandlall

Meanwhile, Nagamootoo later rose stating that it was government’s business to protect the State and doing so meant passing these Bills into law.

He said that statements that the there were no consultations on the Bill are not “only misleading statement, it flies in the face of truth.”

He argued that it is totally irresponsible to come into this August Assembly and make baseless allegations.

“The question of bulldozing has no merit whatsoever. They want to use the Parliament to frustrate the people’s business – the government’s business,” said the Prime Minister.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Private Sector piles criticism on govt over failure to consult on financial crimes, anti-terrorism laws

The headquarters of the Private Sector Commission, Waterloo Street, Georgetown The headquarters of the Private Sector Commission, Waterloo Street, Georgetown

Pressure is intensifying on the Guyana government over its failure to consult with the stakeholders on key pieces of financial crimes and anti-terrorism legislation.

“There is growing concern regarding consultation and we would hope that this latest example will be the last piece of legislation done in this manner. 

Vital pieces of legislation should and must be brought to the attention of affected stakeholders from civil society and the private sector so that Article 13 of the Constitution is implemented,” said the PSC in a statement.

First, it was the main opposition People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) that accused government of moving to ramrod three Bills through all its stages to approval at the Thursday, December 17, 2015 sitting of the National Assembly.

Now, the PSC says it only learnt about an amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act and a new Anti-Terrorism and Terrorist Related Activities Bill to be tabled and read in the National Assembly “with no apparent consultation with the business community.”

“The Private Sector Commission is as concerned as the Government is that the country should be compliant with international requirements but is equally concerned that all law-abiding stakeholders should be protected,” says the umbrella business organisation.

Reacting to the PPPC’s concerns that parliamentary democracy was being violated by the failure to give opposition parliamentarians and other stakeholders ample time to study the Bills, President David Granger told Demerara Waves Online News that government was keen on continuing its parliamentary agenda.  “That’s not railroading. We are anxious to fulfill our mandate and our responsibility and, as you know there has been a lapse in calling of Parliament for all sorts of official reasons, and we are trying to complete as much as possible before year-end so, in fact, it’s a commitment to democracy, not the opposite,” Granger has said.

Opposition Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira Wednesday lashed back,  describing Granger’s comments as “laughable” and “incredulous. She also charged that the President appeared to behaving in an anti-democratic manner.  “The fact that there was no sitting from October 27 to December 17 is certainly not the fault of the Opposition. We believe there is railroading; they have been railroading and I think the President may not be too appreciative of what is parliamentary democracy,” said Teixeira, a one-time Presidential Advisor on Governance.
FM

Abuse of human rights likely in "vague" anti-terrorism law, GHRA warns

Abuse of human rights likely in "vague" anti-terrorism law, GHRA warns

The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) Wednesday night slammed government for seeking to rush anti-terrorism legislation through the National Assembly that it warned could open up ordinary citizens to abuse by authorities if they are perceived a terrorist threat.

“In its present state this Bill would allow the State to perpetrate serious violations of due process and fair trial rights and should not be allowed to pass into law,” said the association in a statement.

The Anti-Terrorism and Terrorist Related Activities Bill No.16 of 2015, for instance, says a terrorist act is one that is "likely to cause prejudice to national security” as well as "is intended to compel a Government to do or refrain from doing an act or to intimidate the public or a section thereof."

“The language regarding "prejudice to national security" is also too vague and capable of abuse. The additional inclusion of acts which are likely merely "to cause damage to property" is also unacceptably vague,” added the decades-old GHRA.

According to the association, some of the draconian features in the anti-terrorism Bill are not justified and that several of the vague definitions means a wide range of acts can be considered support for terrorism or fall under the duty of disclosure.

The Association stated that more than ten  new terrorist-related offences attract the death penalty, while ‘life imprisonment’ is defined as “for the remainder of the natural life of the offender”. “This definition is incorrect. It should not be adopted either as a discretionary or mandatory definition of life imprisonment. This definition is also internally contradictory in the Bill.”

Expressing shock, the GHRA condemned government’s intention to rush the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Terrorist-Related Activities Bill 2015 on Thursday, allowing less than two days for parliamentarians to analyse the 107-page proposed law. That, the association said, ran counter to a call to the Attorney General’s Chambers in July 2015 for the draft to be subjected to fuller public comment and reaction by Guyanese as well as a formal assessment, perhaps from one of the United Nations’ technical agencies.



The association noted that the GHRA’s submission to the Attorney General’s Chambers, which benefitted from local and overseas expertise, included more than 30 amendments none of which has been included in the Bill. “Not one of the recommendations from the GHRA submission has merited inclusion in the draft Bill to be debated tomorrow,” added the GHRA.



One suggestion by the association to replace the vague formulations could be found in the Terrorism Financing Convention: It states (a)        any ... act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

The GHRA said “on the positive side” the definition also includes reference to certain clauses of the international counter-terrorism conventions, as well an exclusionary clause which excludes from the definition, inter alia, acts "committed in furtherance of a demonstration, protest", etc., but these features may not be sufficient to remedy the vagueness  of the two elements of the core definition.  

The GHRA recommended that that the Guyana governmentinclude a Section in the Anti-Terrorism Bill to provide for the establishment of “an Advisory Committee on Human Rights and Terrorism”.  “Such a committee would advise on the implementation of the eventual Act and could be led by a senior judge, including among others, representatives from civil society.”
FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×