By Mohamed Foday Conteh
Members of Parliament have on the 21st June 2021 scrutinised and debated the proposed cybercrime bill in the House of Parliament at Tower Hill, Freetown.
This is the third sitting Parliament has convened with regards the cybercrime bill. The proposed bill is part of the effort of the government to sanitise the country’s cyberspace.
The majority of Parliamentarians were concerned with some of the terms or phrases in specific sections and parts of the proposed bill.
One concern was that to do with the enforcement officer or cybercrime officer. One section of the House was of the notion that an enforcement officer must have a background in cybercrime activities as defined in one of the limbs of the Act. Another group in the House, agreed with the definitions as provided in the Act in its entirety.
The Speaker, Dr. Abass Bundu, was nevertheless concerned with the definition. With this, he asked the Minister of Information and Communication, Mohamed Rahman Swaray for further elucidation, the reason being that the enforcement officer is also an individual or officer in a law enforcement agency or an expert in cybercrime.
The Minister replied that Part 2 of the Act made references to authorised persons. He added that with regards to the same, ECOWAS has pledged to train cybercrime officers. He added that a technical staff, in this case, does not necessarily need to be a police officer and that the authorised person and law enforcement officer could be one and the same. However, some members of Parliament did not agree with the Minister.
Chief Kanagbaro Sanka III, from Tonkolili District, said that there is no need to separate the two as they are one and the same. That is to say, it is unnecessary for any separation of the two.
The Speaker disagreed saying that the designation or definition connotes two limbs; one is enforcement officer with specific training in cybercrime and the other is a specialist only by authorisation. Chernor Maju Bah, Leader of the APC, said that in both cases both persons need to be trained because they carry the tag ‘professionals’. In contrast, Mathew Nyuma, Leader of Government Business in Parliament, said that it is necessary to use the term professionals and that the term could be equated to an Information Technology (IT) officers.
The Leader of the APC, also drew reference to the phrases used in cyberstalking. Chernor Bah said that some aspect of the definition is subjective. He requested that some aspect of the definition did not make clear the term ‘fair’. “It is very subjective,” he added. The Speaker acknowledged that it will be addressed.
The Speaker called the attention of the Minister with regards to the term ‘extradition’. He said that the definition is too narrow. “This is the first time I am seeing such a narrow definition is too narrow,” the Speaker added.
Swaray said that the definition took into the cognizance of the Malabo Accord, ECOWAS among others. He said that it was therefore a deliberate act that some phrases were removed. He added that there is now a special segment for extradition, unlike how it was placed in the original bill.
Mathew Nyuma, Majority Leader of Parliament, said that the term ‘bulk’ should remain as put forward in the Act. He said this, after other members of Parliament suggested that the term should be rephrased. However, Nyuma said that the term should remain more especially when the forwarder or creator would initiate the command. He also added that messages on social media can be deleted if the forwarder notices that it is fake or unsubstantiated.
Chairman of the Legislative Committee, Abdul Marray Conteh said that the term should be replaced with phrases like ‘multiple unsolicited’ rather than ‘bulk’
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online
