he Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) is again calling for the withdrawal of the sedition charge against ex-GDF Lieutenant Oliver Hinckson, adding that it should be dropped in the national interest.
The human rights NGO is maintaining too that legal charges are frequently withdrawn here, alluding to previous incidents to bolster its case.
The GHRA in a press release indicating its disagreement with Minister Clement Rohee on this issue said “Efforts by the Minister of Home Affairs to project the impression that once charges are laid in this country the legal process is sacrosanct, run counter to both law and popular experience of what takes place.”
“The son of a minister,” the release recalled, “is charged with causing death by dangerous driving, the matter is settled and charges are withdrawn; policemen are charged with corruption and, lo and behold, charges are withdrawn. Not to mention the long-standing problem of numerous charges withdrawn in sexual offences cases.”
The human rights body asserted that, “All we are saying is that somebody out there knows how charges can be withdrawn. We are asking in the national interest that they conjure up this magic in the sedition matter. If it needs to be repeated, the GHRA is not asking the President to involve himself in this matter, because there are other agencies which can consider this proposal.”
And the GHRA said further that “for the record, however, and to quell inappropriate indignation, Presidential interventions in the judicial process, as demonstrated by the use of the Presidential prerogative of pardon, is constitutionally protected.”
The GHRA also stated that despite its “explicit clarification” that it had never requested President Bharrat Jagdeo to interfere in judicial matters to have sedition charges against Hinckson withdrawn, the State and other media persisted in falsifying the statement.
According to the human rights body, “MTV Channel 65 carried an identical falsification of the GHRA statement, both in its allegation of what the GHRA requested the President to do, and in the additional untruth that the GHRA was tardy in issuing condemnations of the Lusignan and Bartica massacres.”
And supporting its contention, the GHRA said its releases “were sent to the State media along with others on January 27 at 3.57 pm, the day after the Lusignan massacre. By that time the GHRA had talked to three of the affected families and assisted family members in the delivery of mattresses to replace those bloodied by the killings. The release on Bartica was sent to the State media along with others on February 20 at 3.21pm, three days after the massacre.”
Continuing its complaint against distortions of its earlier release in sections of the media, the GHRA said that the “Sunday Chronicle of March 16, 2008 dedicated an editorial to attacking the GHRA on its statements despite having never published them. In keeping with its regular practice, the Guyana Chronicle published letters from readers attacking the GHRA over statements the newspaper itself never published.”
“Both the distortions and the extended slander against the GHRA as an institution,” the human rights body maintained, “reinforce once again the need for a vigorous and independent complaints Com-mittee on Broadcasting Standards to which such behaviour can be referred.”
