Members of both the Opposition and Independent benches yesterday spoke out against proposed amendments to give the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) a wider mandate to gather information on an increased number of offences, including treason.
This is as the Senate began debate on the legislation, which was passed in the House of Representatives last month. It seeks to give the “intelligence” agency a wider mandate to gather information on serveral additional offences. When it was established in 1995, the SSA was mandated to gather intelligence on drug-related offences only.
Coordinator of the Independents, Dr Dhanayshar Mahabir, in his contribution yesterday, said since it was established over 20 years ago, the SSA had not assisted in the prosecution of any major drug offences.
He said instead that “on grounds of efficiency the SSA needs to be strengthened before we add to it.”
The SSA will be able to intercept information and Mahabir said there was great danger in that, as the information intercepted could be used to embarrass an individual.
He insisted the right of citizens to privacy, freedom of thought and expression would be infringed if the measure was approved.
He said the need for private citizens to have their private space must be respected. “Let us respect the right of people to have freedom of thought as without freedom of thought there can be no progress. We need our private space for freedom of thought.”
Mahabir said without freedom of expression there can be no liberty. He said the legislation could make life similar to life in North Korea. Mahabir also called for the measure to be withdrawn. A similar position was taken by the Leader of Opposition Business, Senator Wade Mark, in his contribution earlier. Mark said the bill required a special majority for approval. The Government did not share that view.
Mark said the Opposition would like the measure to be put before a select committee of the Senate, where several important amendments will be proposed by the Opposition.
Dealing with the perceived breach in privacy under the legislation through interception of communication, Mark said, “It may even serve to compromise a person’s right to a fair trial.”
Mark also said the State cannot “enjoy an unlimited discretion.”