Dear Editor,
In my letter dated August 18, 2024, titled “The Cybersecurity Law, as is, is a Threat to Democracy,” I emphasized the hypocrisy of those who enacted the Cybersecurity legislation and made it political. In other news, some individuals who proudly labelled themselves “Guardians of Democracy” are now backing a law that contradicts multiple constitutional protections, including human rights and freedom of speech. In this article, I aim to delve into these critical issues further.
Guyana’s cybersecurity legislation, while intended to protect the nation from digital threats, has raised significant concerns regarding its impact on the fundamental right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 146 of the Constitution of Guyana. The legislation’s broad and vaguely defined provisions potentially criminalize legitimate expression, infringing upon this constitutional right. Article 146 of the Constitution of Guyana guarantees every citizen the right to “freedom of expression,” which includes “the freedom to hold opinions without interference” and “to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” However, certain provisions within Guyana’s cybersecurity legislation have the potential to violate this right by criminalizing online speech that is deemed “offensive”, “emotional distress to Ministers in Government” or “likely to incite public disorder,” without clearly defining these terms.
The overly broad language of the legislation allows for subjective interpretation, which can lead to the suppression of dissent, criticism of the government, and other forms of legitimate expression. This vagueness creates a chilling effect, where individuals may self-censor for fear of prosecution, thus undermining the very essence of freedom of expression.
Recent developments have raised concerns about the potential misuse of cybersecurity legislation in cases that may extend beyond their stated purpose. A notable example is the case involving Leroy Smith and Keron Bruce, where Mr. Smith claimed, “He was the target of criticism by a cartoon character known as “MUDWATA,” which allegedly caused him emotional distress.” This has sparked broader discussions about the implications of such cases, particularly in the context of freedom of expression and political discourse. In the case mentioned, the character “MUDWATA” allegedly made various allegations against Mr. Smith, which he claims led to significant emotional distress.
However, there is a growing sentiment that the underlying issues may extend beyond the specific allegations. Some observers believe that the case may be part of a broader effort to suppress political dissent, given that Mr. Bruce, who is associated with the case, is a founder and executive member of an independent political party.
Given the legislation’s potential to infringe on fundamental human rights, there is an urgent need for its repeal or significant amendment. The law should be revised to ensure that any restrictions on freedom of expression are clearly defined, narrowly tailored, and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Such amendments should also include safeguards against abuse and ensure that individuals have access to legal recourse in cases of unjust prosecution. Failure to address these concerns risks undermining Guyana’s democratic values and its commitment to upholding international human rights standards. The government must act swiftly to protect the right to freedom of expression that is essential for a vibrant and functioning democracy.
Guyana is a signatory to several international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which under Article 19, protects the right to freedom of expression. According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 34, any restrictions on freedom of expression must be necessary, proportionate, and clearly defined in law. The current cybersecurity legislation fails to meet these criteria.
Moreover, the legislation contravenes the principles outlined in the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Guyana is also a party. Article 13 of this convention emphasizes the importance of freedom of thought and expression, and any restrictions must be explicitly justified by law and necessary for the protection of national security, public order, or public health. The legislation’s vague and sweeping restrictions do not meet these stringent standards.
In conclusion, while the intention behind Guyana’s cybersecurity legislation is to protect national security, its current form poses a significant threat to the right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed by Article 146 of the Constitution and international human rights norms. The legislation must be urgently repealed or amended to align with constitutional and international standards, ensuring that it protects the nation’s security and the fundamental rights of its citizens. It is recommended that the Government of Guyana engage in a comprehensive review of the cybersecurity legislation, involving stakeholders from civil society, legal experts, international cybersecurity agencies, Policing bodies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency or Department of Justice and international human rights bodies. This process should aim to draft legislation that effectively balances the need for cybersecurity with the protection of freedom of expression, ensuring that Guyana remains committed to upholding the rights and freedoms of its people. Magnus est Populous.
Sincerely,
Denzel St Hill
General Secretary
Movement for Unity and Democracy
