Gov’t never intended to hold consultations on security bill – Forde
APNU-AFC Member of Parliament and Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs Roysdale Forde is of the view that the government’s decision to send the National Intelligence and Security Agency Bill to a select committee after public scrutiny represents the very nature in which it is bent on having no consultation with people.
Last month, the government through Attorney General Anil Nandlall introduced the bill to the National Assembly with the intention of passing it through Parliament and into law. However, with public outcry coming from the Guyana Bar Association, the APNU-AFC, civil society and others, further consultation on the bill was ordered by President Irfaan Ali.
“This sort of occurrence… displays the sort of governance that takes place in the country,” Forde said. “You would have expected under the Article 13 framework of consultation, that the government, intending to bring such a bill, would have engaged in consultation first to have buy-in of views.”
Forde added that the approach to Parliament with the intention to pass the bill, showed that consultation was not on the mind of the government and it was only sent to a select committee as a result of public outcry.
The proposed National Intelligence and Security Agency is expected to be responsible for collecting data, processing it from many sources and providing such data, reports and also advising the President on matters of national security. It would also be tasked with the responsibility to do investigations on matters relating to national security.
The President will choose the director of the agency, who can be from the GDF, the GPF or a civilian. The director can serve no less than three years, and not
more than five, can qualify for reappointment.
Forde further said, “While there is in principle the need for the country to have the services that an intelligence agency can provide, I don’t believe that we did a good job capturing the different elements and the weigh against the possible risk of abuse and high-handed operation.
“The bill, I believe, is very weak on oversight. It is void of any serious parliamentary oversight over the operation of the agency. The bill provides no sufficient protection against the agency [invading]... on the fundamental rights of the Guyanese people; the right to privacy, the right of the Guyanese people to have their private information not available to the agency, the ability to have investigations, complaints done effectively.”
From a law perspective, Forde added, the bill also breaches the confidentiality of the client to lawyer relation by breaching the lines of communications and also forcing information to the agency that would work against the client.
Nandlall has maintained that the agency is nothing new but simply brings intelligence gathering under one umbrella.