…says Dr. Luncheon
HEAD of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon has given Office of the President’s perspective on the issue of operatives of the Guyana Police Force and the Guyana Defence Force and noted the disappointment at which that office viewed the disclosures in another section of the media of sensitive related information.
He spoke during his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing held at the Office of the President on Friday. On Thursday, a section of the media carried a report of officers of the disciplined forces receiving recompense from OP for security operations.
“I think to put this matter into perspective is for us to concede that there is a realm of national security thinking about the security of information,” said Dr. Luncheon on Friday.
“Much of that is conventional and the Access to Information Bill will identify information that is exempt, that is not to be made available, sometimes with statues – 20 years, 30 years, and most countries would have legislation prescribing the illegal access, distribution, publication of information of national security significance,” Dr. Luncheon said.
“I want to believe that the response by the State represented by [Commodore Best] is fully supported by the Office of the President which essentially is the Ministry of National Security and Ministry of Defence, that there is a strong sentiment that engagements have been breached, both by the stealer and of course the publisher of the illegally or unlawfully acquired information,” said Luncheon.
He said that the Office of the President, as the Ministry of Defence addressing national security matters, undertakes wide-ranging interventions outside of the specific remit of the law enforcement or the military. “But because we have not completed the creation of the National Intelligence Centre and recruited for the national intelligence community, we use either the branch or, on occasion, the military to provide these national security functions. It is within that context  that the disclosures collided with our concerns about confidentiality,” he said.
“We felt that it was clearly obvious to the publishers – might not have been to the stealer – but it was fairly obvious to the publisher that they were crossing the great divide in disclosing the names and identity of operatives. The suspicion that I have is that this obsession with anti-government, anti-PPP bashing by these publishers and others, probably clouded their judgement as to what was safe, what was reasonable, and what was justifiable about such actions,” he said.
“I am not certain of where, when or how, but I am in possession of allegations and some reports,” Dr. Luncheon said, when asked to elaborate on where the leak might have occurred. “Apart from suspicions about the stealer, I won’t be able to be confirmatory,” he said.
Dr. Luncheon said that with the operationalising of the National Intelligence Centre and introduction of legislation and all of the paraphernalia, “perhaps we will have a more rigorous environment in terms of state security, intelligence, documentation and such like.”