The Bill which caused the most contentious arguments is the Criminal Law (Offences) (Amendment) Bill which ROAR Member of Parliament, Mr. Ravi Dev, said could be used as a "political weapon".

Addressing certain aspects of the amendments made to the Act, Mr. Singh quoted a section which stated, "Whoever with intent to threaten the security or sovereignty of Guyana...", and paused to ask the Speaker of the House, "Is there an objection in defining that as a criminal offence? Who would wish to say that a person falling into that category ought not to be criminalised?"

These questions were met with silence from the Opposition members present in Parliament, ROAR leader Dev and GAP/WPA member, Ms. Sheila Holder.

Singh continued to quote Section 309 A (I) of the Bill noting, "...or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substance or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means whatsoever, in such a manner as to cause, or likely to cause, death or injures to any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community or causes damage or destruction of any property or equipment used or intended to be used for the defence of Guyana or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of Guyana or any of its agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act commits a terrorist act."

To further strengthen his argument, he stated, "I wish to challenge any person who seeks to say that what we have defined there as a terrorist act ought not to be called a terrorist act. This is almost identical to the definition which is in the greatest democracy of the world, the Union of India. "

In explaining the mechanism used before the Attorney General's Chambers embarks on any legislation he said, "The first thing that is done is to enquire whether legislation exists either in the Caribbean or wider afield. It is only after such a search is made, that we determine and identify parallel legislation. We do not invent the wheel, we follow the tradition. "

Questions have also been developing which centre on the premise that the freedom to protest/march will be taken away from Guyanese. To this, Singh noted, "If Regent Street is burnt down with the motive of influencing the Government, then that is a terrorist act and must be defined as such."

Gajraj in support of the Bill, said that it is viewed in the context of the mounting violence and is geared toward the protection of the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is hoped that it will serve as a deterrent and will ensure the civil rights and liberties of persons are protected.

Since legislation already exists to deal with riotous behaviour, Gajraj said, "Legislation must be able to keep abreast with the menace of society. It does not, however, seek to infringe on constitutional rights of citizens."

Further, "Concerns about the right to free movement and assembly are unfounded, since there are rights enshrined in our Constitution. However, you have rights to the extent that you do not scandal any person's rights or book name. The same goes to freedom of movement. While you are guaranteed freedom of movement, you cannot do so without a passport. Similarly, the only time assembly becomes a felony is when you are assembled with the intent to commit a criminal act."

De Santos, an Attorney-at-Law and Senior Counsel, in defending the constitutionality of the Bill said, "This Bill is a simple piece of legislation that has two parts. The first part defines what is being touted as a terrorist act."

Further, "These are dangerous, extraordinary and trying times which call for extreme measures", he said.

"Before it escalates, this Government has a responsibility, indeed, a duty to prescribe a treatment to deal with this matter."

Addressing the issue of the local law enforcement officers, De Santos noted, "When the law enforcement agency finds itself besieged; when the citizens of this country cannot relax; when guns are used with impunity by persons unlicenced, and who are not entitled to have them, our Government cannot remain idle. Now is the time for action."

Quoting Article 143 of the Constitution he noted, "Every government has a duty to bring forward legislation for the protection of the State and indeed the citizens."

Having given the right of freedom of movement, under the Article there is, however, no absolute right since this can lead to chaos.

According to De Santos, "What will happen to your character when freedom of speech is used to malign and defame people? Live and let live. There must be a balancing of rights. "

"The House has done its work in passing the Bill. It now remains the responsibility of the Judiciary to interpret and the law enforcers to enforce it."

In regard to the argument put forward by Ms. Holder that there was no provision for compensation for victims of terrorist acts, De Santos said, "I agree that it is a matter which must be addressed at sometime but as I said, the damage is being done now. All those eminent people who remain unnamed should come, not to sit outside or in corners and babble, but to come and challenge the legislation. Let us see if it is offensive in the way which we are told it may be."

Addressing Holder's argument that the death penalty is unconstitutional, he noted: "Article 141 said that nothing that is lawful, when the Constitution took effect, can ever be held as unconstitutional. So the question of unconstitutionality does not arise."