Some months ago in a rural magistrate’s court not generally covered by the media, a man was convicted of sexually abusing his granddaughter, who would have been around three years old when the sordid use of her innocent body began. It lasted for over a year. The man, who has since appealed against his conviction and sentence, is out on bail pending the appeal. While the sexual assault of the child never involved penetrative sex, the acts performed with, on and by her were so disgustingly pornographic in nature that they occasioned a loss of innocence.
As related to me by a still-distraught female relative of the child, who is now six years old, it was her sudden proclivity for older men; her openly sexual overtures to them and the “hickeys” (love bites) they began noticing about her body that clued relatives in to what had been happening, virtually under their own eyes.
At the trial, though the child was not required to give evidence in open court, the relative said, it was her matter-of-fact description to the magistrate, in chambers, of what she and her grandfather did that helped to secure his conviction. The trial had dragged on for some two years, constantly being adjourned when it was called up, with no hearing of evidence. However, even after all of that time, the child’s description of what happened whenever she went to her grandfather’s house remained unchanged. He was sentenced to two years in prison, which the relative feels is insufficient, given the colossal mental and emotional damage done to the child and the chasm left in the family by this sick act.
The relative was also outraged that the abuser had the temerity to not only challenge the evidence in court, but to appeal a sentence she considers a slap on the wrist. She questioned why he was not charged with carnal knowledge instead of indecent assault. The answer is of course because he was clever enough not to actually have had vaginal or anal sex with the child. Carnal knowledge is taken from the Latin carnalis for fleshly; it means sexual intercourse between a male and female in which there is at least some slight penetration. In legal terms, it is a necessary legal characteristic or element of rape, child molestation, or consensual sexual relations with a girl below the age of consent (“statutory rape”).
Paedophilia is not only alive and well in Guyana; its practitioners obviously believe themselves to be very clever. And when they are caught the antiquity, sloth and apathy in the criminal justice system often allow them to go free.
There is recognition that something needs to be done to protect girls and women from sexual abuse. Support for this was evidenced by the massive turnouts at the countrywide ‘Stamp it Out’ consultations which were held recently. The rape law amendment that is expected to flow from the consultations is being eagerly awaited. But will the mere passing of the law accomplish anything?
On October 27, 2005, a bill was passed amending Chapter 8.01 of the Laws of Guyana, Criminal Offence Act raising the legal age of consent for sexual intercourse to 16 years old. It was, up to that point, 12 years old.
The amending of the legislation followed activism by women’s groups and individuals in the light of a legal matter, which started in 2004, involving Reeaz Khan, a prominent businessman who was having sexual relations with a 13-year-old girl. When the girl’s mother discovered the relationship, she pressed charges. Khan was charged with abduction and he in turn, filed a perjury charge against the girl’s mother. A judge then sent the child to the juvenile detention centre at the New Opportunity Corps at Onderneeming, in Essequibo as there was no other suitable alternative protective institution. The girl’s mother had later reported that on her release from Onderneeming, the child ran away from home supposedly to live with Khan. Appeals to the police proved futile.
Today, even after all of the publicity which attended the Reeaz Khan case, there seems to have been an increase in the number of reported cases of statutory rape, begging the question, has the mere raising of the age of consent done anything to help protect young girls?
A glance at court records over the past year would point to a resounding no as the answer to this question.
Between January 1, 2007 and today some 53 men have appeared before the courts charged with indecent assault and carnal knowledge of underage girls, whose ages ranged from three years old to 16 years old.
In three of the cases, sodomy was involved.
Five of the accused in various cases were teenagers with ages ranging from 16 to 18 years old. In three instances, the accused faced multiple charges having allegedly abused sisters.
In two instances, the men accused were serving police officers when the alleged offences were committed.
The oldest accused was 73 years of age.
While most of the accused were routinely remanded to prison, some were granted bail sometimes on their first appearance.
Unbelievably, in some of the cases, lawyers representing the accused had argued that the sexual relationship was consensual. In one instance, the defence attorney had produced the mother of the virtual complainant to have her say that she did not want the matter to be pursued. Although this did not halt the proceedings, it was a clear indication of the legislation being purposely ignored and should have been met with an immediate objection by the prosecution or a stern reprimand from the bench.
If this is the state of affairs with regard to carnal knowledge and underage girls just how much faith can one place in the imminent new rape law? Dare we hope that its provisions and penalties will be enough to deter would-be rapists? Can we rest assured that those responsible for enforcing it will do so when the time comes? Or will they remain entrenched in the old way of doing things? And if there is the slightest chance of that should there not be awareness and education programmes planned?
Finally, an appeal to the powers that be: What about the oh so badly needed rape crisis centres? Or will they only be set up after the rape law is amended?