Dear Editor,
I noticed in your newspaper, SN 1/3/2019 an editorial about the Domestic Violence Act and an article about a brutal attack on a woman by her partner while accompanying a rural constable to serve what is described as “ a restraining order ”. The article reports that the survivor went back to the police station and asked that the man” be served a restraining order.” Please note the Guyana Police Force has no power to issue a restraining order or more accurately a protection, occupation or tenancy order under the Domestic Violence Act, 1996. The police are empowered in the DVA to make an application on behalf of a DVA survivor which then has to be taken to the Court for a hearing. It is only the Courts who can grant/issue any of the three orders as set out in the Domestic Violence Act. Based on the article it is not clear if this is a summons for a court matter, an arrest warrant being issued for offender, a rural constable accompanying a survivor to take possession of her personal belongings, a DVA protection order being served or a breach of a DVA order being enforced. What is disturbing is that the Guyana Police Force Domestic Violence Policy according to article was not followed i.e. all DV reports be recorded, investigated, if credible, offender arrested, charged and placed before the Courts. No police officer of any rank has the power/right to advise, counsel, or recommend any DV victim making a report to go home and make up.
As regards the editorial on the DVA, many individuals, NGOs and other CSO have been advocating for years for a DVA review including the risk to survivors of domestic violence who accompany relevant officials including police to point out offenders. Under previous and current Governments, pickets, marches, press releases, forums, task forces’ recommendations, letters and other forms of advocacy for review of Guyana’s DVA have fallen on deaf ears. And while I agree with your editorial that implementation of the DVA can and must be uniformly improved; I would have to disagree with the sweeping condemnation of Guyana’s DVA as having ‘First World’ mechanisms which are not suitable or are insurmountable to implement in the Guyana context.
I work with a Guyanese NGO and have firsthand knowledge of many abused women and even a few men who have opted to use the DVA, have had their protection/other orders granted and have been able to move on with their lives in a more violent free environment successfully. In fact worldwide most countries have similar DVA in place, including our Caricom sister countries and while these are not perfect and have many similar implementation problems, DVA’s were enacted to give survivors of DV immediate and effective recourse from the brutality of domestic violence. A recent UG dissertation, by a doctoral candidate I believe, looked at Guyana’s DVA and other legal DV remedies such as criminal assault cases and compared their successes, findings showed that the DVA was found to be overwhelmingly more successful in terms of positive outcomes as against criminal assault charges. Additionally the DVA allows for child maintenance orders to be filed at the same time as well as a criminal assault charges. This flexibility allows for immediate protection while criminal assault hearings continue if so wished. The DVA by itself cannot be the solution to domestic violence in Guyana, it is but one measure in what has to be a whole raft of measures to combat this scourge. What is needed is a comprehensive review of the DVA including failings pointed out in your editorial while at the same time ramping up services, education, affordable housing and prevention.
Yours faithfully,
Danuta Radzik
