-APNU demands independent oversight
The Ministry of Home Affairs has called for a comprehensive review of safeguards at the police Command Centre following the alleged unauthorised disclosure of surveillance footage, while the PNCR/APNU and parliamentarian Sherod Duncan say the controversy exposes wider failures in oversight and institutional management.
In a November 1 statement, the ministry described the alleged unauthorised access, extraction and disclosure of footage from the Liliendaal facility as a serious threat to the confidentiality and integrity of law-enforcement operations.
It said the police investigation must proceed on evidence and in accordance with the law.
“Political office does not confer immunity from investigation, just as political affiliation cannot be a basis for prosecution,” the ministry stated.
The PNCR/APNU, in a statement issued on November 2, acknowledged the seriousness of unauthorised disclosure but argued that accountability must extend beyond any individual accused of breaching procedures.
Duncan, in a separate response, said he had sought parliamentary scrutiny of surveillance safeguards for almost a year and had proposed an independent Office of the Surveillance Commissioner.
The ministry said the alleged conduct, if established, would constitute an abuse of entrusted access, potentially compromising sensitive investigations, undermining operational security and interfering with the administration of justice.
It also acknowledged that the matter raised questions about compliance with standard operating procedures and the adequacy of protections for sensitive information.
“Accordingly, the Ministry expects a comprehensive review of personnel, access controls, supervisory arrangements, and operational procedures at the Command Centre,” the release said.
The review would establish the extent of the alleged breach, identify failures of conduct or oversight and guide corrective action, including stronger controls, tighter supervision and enforcement of procedures. Its findings would also inform legislative reform.
The release did not identify who would conduct the review or give a timetable for its completion.
The PNCR/APNU questioned whether adequate safeguards, personnel vetting, access restrictions and supervisory mechanisms had been established before the surveillance system was put into operation.
“This is not simply a matter of one police constable or any individual who may have breached established procedures. It is a question of institutional responsibility,” the party stated.
It argued that internal misconduct, abuse of access privileges and unauthorised disclosure were foreseeable risks which should have been addressed through planning, monitoring and training.
The party called for an independent technical and operational assessment covering the system’s design, vulnerabilities, access arrangements and operating procedures.
It also proposed a review of Command Centre personnel, individual user authentication, audit trails, continuous monitoring, supervisory approval and clear responsibility for access to recordings.
Consultation with security specialists, professional bodies, civil society and the parliamentary opposition should precede changes with national-security and public-interest implications, the PNCR/APNU said.
It further called for specialist training in information security, confidentiality, evidence management and the legal responsibilities attached to handling surveillance material.
Independent oversight was necessary, the party argued, to protect citizens’ rights and guard against political manipulation of the system.
Duncan said the ministry’s proposed review addressed safeguards he had already raised through parliamentary questions and a motion.
According to him, a question submitted on November 19, 2025, sought information about the legal authority and safeguards governing police drone surveillance, including operating procedures, retention and deletion of footage, access controls and records identifying who viewed, copied or exported recordings.
He said he had also asked about facial recognition, automated licence-plate capture and other AI-assisted surveillance.
On May 9, 2026, Duncan said, he submitted a motion, seconded by MP Juretha Fernandes, proposing an independent Surveillance Commissioner and effective implementation of Guyana’s data-protection framework.
The proposed office would conduct audits and inspections, scrutinise data sharing and access controls, investigate complaints and report publicly to the National Assembly. The motion also addressed facial-recognition errors, algorithmic bias and the impact of surveillance on fundamental rights, he said.
Duncan said three further questions submitted on October 7 concerned public-security cameras and the Safe Country initiative. These sought details of who controlled recordings and facial-recognition data, whether material was stored locally or overseas, and which officers, contractors or foreign entities could access it.
Other questions concerned contracts, expenditure, retention procedures, audit findings, human verification before police action and the investigations, arrests, charges and convictions associated with the systems.
“Those questions remain unanswered, against a background of ad hoc parliamentary sittings and largely non-functioning oversight committees,” Duncan stated.
He called for relevant recordings, access logs and instructions to be preserved and for the investigation to be subject to credible independent scrutiny, including examination of the supervisory chain.
Discussion