The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) office has given police advice in relation to the police officer implicated in transporting at least one of the girls who were rescued from the Puruni backdam on Sunday by the Guyana Women Miners Organisation (GWMO).
Crime Chief Seelall Persaud had told this newspaper early yesterday that the police officer was under close arrest and a file was being prepared to be sent to the DPP’s Chambers. This newspaper understands that the file was sent and returned yesterday afternoon with the necessary advice, although it was not clear if charges would be laid against the officer shortly.
Persaud indicated that based on the evidence so far there are two cases of human trafficking, one involving the officer and two other persons and another implicating other suspects. However, while the officer, who was picked out on an identification parade on Tuesday by the youngest of the four girls rescued, has been nabbed no other suspects have been arrested and up to yesterday morning police had not travelled to into the interior location.
Yesterday, President of the GWMO Simona Broomes, who was physically and verbally assaulted on Sunday after she and other members of the organisation removed the girls from a shop where they were being kept against their will, said that if the police had acted promptly on Sunday the couple could have been arrested. She pointed out that she had immediately reported to police at Bartica and other officials that the man and woman had followed them up to the Itaballi Crossing and to return to the backdam they would have had to pass a police checkpoint. Had the ranks there been alerted the couple could have been nabbed, she said. Broomes is fearful that as more time is lost the couple would have ample opportunity to go into hiding.
Meanwhile, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) condemned what it called the “a complete lack of preparedness and failure of officialdom” in dealing with Sunday’s rescue of the girls even as it heaped praise on Broomes and her members.
According to the GHRA, the incident captured the “whole spectrum of dangers to be confronted in combatting trafficking…” Those dangers, the association pointed out, included deceived girls; callous shopkeepers; spineless and complicit Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) officials; corrupt and indifferent police; heartless police-stations and government agencies incapable of dealing with emergencies.
“Had this incident come from out of the blue, the unpreparedness may have been excusable,” the association said, but it pointed out that the fact is that for almost a decade, pressured by the US embassy in Guyana, the government claims to have invested heavily in combatting trafficking in Guyana.
“Threats of suspension of aid produced new legislation, laying of charges in some cases and multiple training events, all of which are still to impact institutionally on the GPF, GGMC or even the Ministry of Human Services,” it further noted in a press release.
It said that last Sunday’s incident exposes the ongoing vulnerability of young Amerindian females in isolated communities to trafficking and the unclear situation of Brazilian women in mining camps.
And it stated that GGMC and the GPF both suffer from the lack of a professional pride.
“Away from the constraints of an office environment, too many Guyanese officers in both institutions appear incapable of operating in a principled manner. This is overwhelmingly a male issue and the widespread corruption it fosters is rendering the interior a dangerous place for women,” the association said.
The association took the opportunity to remind all those who allegedly attempted to obstruct the GWMO of the Trafficking Act (2005) and the Sexual Offences Act (2010) both of which contain heavy penalties for anyone who attempts to frustrate, threaten or obstruct efforts, such as the GWMO’s, to remove girls suspected of being trafficked.
According to the Trafficking Act Clause 3(1) “Whoever engages in or conspires to engage in, or attempts to engage in, or assists another person to engage in or organises or directs other persons to engage in ‘trafficking in persons’ can receive a life sentence. Removing or possessing any identity papers belonging to another person carries a fine of $1 million plus up to five years’ imprisonment (Clause 4); knowingly transporting a person for purposes of prostitution carries a fine of up to $1million plus three years imprisonment, which can be extended to five years plus forfeiture of the conveyance used if ‘aggravating factors’ are involved e.g. transporting a child. (Clause 5(2).”
Clause 20 of the Sexual Offences Act (2010) also renders persons liable to a fine of $1million plus five years for the offence of “obstructing prosecution if that person prevents a child from; giving a statement to the police; giving evidence in any other way which would be admissible for the paper committal; or testifying.”
Moreover, the association pointed out that the Sexual Offences Act Clause 36 states “…. Every person who attempts to commit; conspires with any other person to commit; solicits, incites, aids, abets or counsels or attempts to solicit, incite, aid, abet or counsel any other person to commit; or causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure the commission of, any offence whether summary or indictable, against this Act may be charged with, tried, convicted and punished in all respects as if that person were a principal offender.”
However, the GHRA stated that the potential of these two powerful pieces of legislation is fatally weakened by the failure to implement the Sexual Offences Task Force (Clause 87 (1) and the Trafficking in Persons Task Force (Clause 30 (1) provided for respectively in each of the acts.
“This is equivalent to acquiring sophisticated equipment, but then not bothering to exploit its potential. To date neither of these acts has come close to making the impact of which they are capable, either on prosecutorial or preventative aspects of the acts because the dynamo driving implementation, namely the relevant Task Force, is missing,” the GHRA said.
Further, it stated that the role of officialdom appears to be more protection of miners against effective application of the laws or regulations rather than protection of the environment, communities and individuals affected by mining. The release said it is clear from May 2012 when the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment caved in to miners’ rejection of a limited suspension of new river licences, that mining enjoys a free pass from environmental regulations.
Nor, judging by their behaviour in this recent incident, does the new Trafficking Act hold any fear for GGMC officials, it added. A mines officer had allegedly not offered any assistance to Broomes while she was being assaulted by the man and woman who operate the shop at Tiger Creek, Puruni.
The GHRA said combining natural resources and environmental protection in the same ministry risks a conflict of interest. It noted that the environmental standards are currently being shredded by the same ministry designated to uphold them and called for urgent consideration to be given to enhancing the powers of a genuinely independent Environmental Protection Agency.
