Local social media personality Melissa Atwell, popularly known as ‘Melly Mel,’ is preparing to bring a case against the Guyana Police Force (GPF) after she was detained for 12 hours on Friday following a series of Facebook posts she made compiling complaints against Dr. Balwant Singh’s Hospital.
According to her lawyer, Sanjeev Datadin, the actions of the police are tantamount to harassment, since the onus should have been on the hospital to prove that the claims were untrue.
“The hospital that complained was obliged to show that the information was not true. If you go to show someone has committed murder you must show that murder has occurred. They have not given the police any evidence, so why is the police harassing my client? The police should acquire from them definitive proof that these things are untrue,” Datadin told Sunday Stabroek.
Atwell has over the last few years used social media to address various issues, including domestic and sexual abuse. Persons who “follow” her on Facebook have conveyed in some cases their most private fears and traumas and granted her permission to share them as a means of raising public awareness.
The most recent stories of “trauma” relate to alleged subpar service received from the local hospital, which is popular for the care offered through its obstetrics department. The stories—over 30 in total—accused the hospital and its Director, Dr Madhu Singh, of misdiagnosing, mistreating and misleading patients and then overcharging them for the privilege. Also shared were complaints made on public sites by former staff members and dissatisfied patients.
The hospital, however, contends that “each and every post is untrue.”
“The hospital and Dr. Singh are aware Ms. Atwell posted 33 untrue Facebook posts. As a result, a complaint was made to police,” the hospital’s lawyer, Devindra Kissoon, indicated in a telephone interview.
It was based on this complaint that the police first made contact with Atwell on Monday while she was out of the country and later detained her when she returned on Friday. She was taken to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at Eve Leary and questioned before being denied bail and transported to the East La Penitence Police Station.
According to Atwell, she repeatedly asked if she was being charged but it was not until she had admitted to having made the posts that she was told she was being charged with “defamatory libel.”
“I asked the officer who contacted me on Facebook if I was being charged… I asked the officers who came to my house…I asked [the female officer] why I was being asked to sign a statement, which is [usually] signed by those charged,” she said.
After indicating that she had made posts in relation to the hospital, Atwell was told that she would have to prove that she did not make up the stories and was ordered to turn over her phone.
“I told them no; as an activist I have information about person’s personal life, domestic violence and sexual abuse,” Atwell noted. She further explain-ed that she, however, agreed to grant them access to certain Facebook messages related to the accusations and allowed the Information Technology department to download those records, which show the origin of the complaints.
Despite this, her personal computer was seized and she was detained and transported to the East La Penitence Police Station, after being told that Crime Chief Lydon Alves had personally directed that she be denied bail.
Sunday Stabroek attempted to contact Alves for comment but up to press time calls to all of his numbers remained unanswered.
Eventually, Atwell was granted station bail in the sum of $200,000 at about 11 pm on Friday, by which time she had been in custody for a total of 12 hours.
‘Criminal libel’
She is still not sure of the charges against her. “We don’t know what she is being charged with. It is vague about what they are doing. They told her it had to do with criminal libel, commonly referred to as defamatory libel. They told her what she was doing was defamatory libel, which is preposterous since all libel is defamatory,” Datadin noted.
The assumption, according to the lawyer, is that Atwell is being charged under the recently passed Cybercrime Act, which criminalises “knowingly” sharing false information via an electronic device.
Under section 19 (3) of the 2018 Cybercrime Act, a person commits an offence if the person uses a computer system to disseminate any information, statement or image, knowing the same to be false, that (a) causes damage to the reputation of another person; or (b) subjects another person to public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment.
Anyone found guilty of the offences is liable on summary conviction to a fine of five million dollars and to imprisonment for three years, and on conviction on indictment to a fine of 10 million dollars and to imprisonment for five years.
Kissoon, however, contends that it does not matter if Atwell knew the accusations were true or not and says he is not sure if attempts were made by the hospital to speak with Atwell before a complaint was filed.
He stressed that the hospital has definitive proof that each and every post was untrue and that he is unaware of any complaint currently at the Medical Council against it. “I am aware that there is no finding of any violation of any sort by the Medical Council or any other authority. The hospital is in good standing,” he maintained.
Atwell maintains that as far as she is aware, the stories are true. “These women have shared with me enough to make me believe they experienced what they describe,” she said.
