Businesswoman challenges constitutionality of cybercrime act

Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 April 2026, 17:36 by Writer

A city businesswoman has asked the High Court to quash a section of Guyana’s Cybercrime Act because it, among other things, violates freedom of expression and criminalises speech-based conduct.

Through her lawyers Nigel Hughes and Dr Vivian Williams, Ms Ann Narine has requested the High Court to quash Section 19(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2018 on grounds that it is unconstitutional, null and void for vagueness, overbreadth, and disproportionality, and for impermissibly infringing the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 146 of the Constitution.

Further, Ms Narine is seeking a declaration that that section of the law is unconstitutional as applied to her in that it criminalises speech-based conduct without sufficient clarity, precision, or lawful limitation.

In court papers filed on April 14, the woman contends that that section of the law fails to define with sufficient clarity what constitutes humiliation, the scope of “electronic data” in this context, and the threshold separating criminal conduct from protected expression. “The provision is, therefore, vague, overly broad, and incapable of consistent or predictable application. As a result, it violates Article 146 of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional,” states the fixed date application.

Ms Narine further contends that Section 19(2) of the Cybercrime Act criminalises speech-based conduct without narrowly tailored limits. She says that that section of the legislation fails to meet the cumulative requirements as restrictions of freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be reasonably justifiable and proportionate in a democratic society.

Turning her attention to Guyana’s international human rights obligations, the applicant said a broad interpretation of Section 19(2) that criminalises protected expressive activity would see Guyana breaching the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights whose Article 19 protects freedom of expression. “The constitution should be interpreted consistently with Guyana’s international human rights obligations,” the court states.

Meanwhile, the High Court is also being asked to consider that the Cybercrime Act has been applied unconstitutionally to charge her because the charge fails to identify the specific published content complained of, the platform used, any recipient of the alleged publication, and any specific act within the alleged time period. “The prosecution, therefore, criminalises unspecified expression and prevents the applicant from knowing the case she must meet. This violates Articles 144 and 146 of the constitution,” she says through her lawyers.

In relation to procedural defects and denial of a fair trial, the High Court is being requested to find that the summons filed on Ms Narine failed to specify which section of the law that was allegedly breached, and the information upon oath in the court file was dated after her initial court appearance, not served on her, and was not before the court when she was first required to answer the charge and raised an objection.

She says those “defects” deprived her of proper notice and the ability to prepare a defence, and as a result she was denied fair hearing protections as guaranteed by Article 144 of the constitution.

The High Court is also being asked to declare that her prosecution in a criminal case is unconstitutional, unlawful, and/or an abuse of the process of the court.

Citing Article 187 of the constitution that deals with prosecutorial independence, Ms Narine is seeking a declaration that the conduct of a prosecution by an attorney who is retained, remunerated, and/or takes instructions from the complainant in the same matter is inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence. Consequently, the businesswoman also seeks a High Court declaration that the grant of a fiat by the Director of Public Prosecutions to lawyer Mikel Puran is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void, and of no legal effect.

Orders quashing the DPP’s fiat to prosecute the criminal charge, prohibiting continuation of the criminal charge, staying of all proceedings in that charge pending the hearing and determination of the fixed date application.

Alternatively, the court is being asked to permanently stay the criminal charge against Ms Narine as an abuse of of the process of the court.