It is not often that being wrong is preferable to the vindication that comes with being right and the recent murder of Omela Singh by her former reputed husband is one of those times. There were and still are blatant indications that despite what the press releases say, all police stations are not domestic-violence reporting friendly, nor are all police officers. If they were, perhaps Ms Singh might still be alive as her mother believes.
In view of the grieving mother’s interview with this newspaper, published on Tuesday last, one hopes that the errant officers are disciplined and efforts are made to stamp out the indifference with which reports of gender-based violence are greeted at some police stations and by some police officers. Sookranie Singh told Stabroek News that prior to her murder, her daughter had visited a police station in Georgetown seeking assistance with a restraining order, but was told she needed to pursue same at the station in the area where her now dead murderer resided. After travelling there, she was reportedly asked to return in four days as the officer responsible was not there. It was on day three of that four-day wait that she was attacked and later succumbed. Her attacker ingested poison and also died. Their three children are now orphans being cared for by their grandmother.
In a season where the abuse of women and girls has increased alarmingly, it was beyond disheartening to read of Ms Singh’s travails. As reported by her mother, Ms Singh’s approach to the police in June was not her first, though it turned out to be her last. About two years ago, the mother said, Ms Singh had obtained a similar order against the same man. Following court proceedings, and, it would seem, a temporary change in the man’s behaviour, the couple had returned to cohabiting. However, Ms Singh had exited the relationship two months before she was brutally stabbed to death.
From all indications, the first time around, Ms Singh had found a conscientious police officer who followed the motto, ‘service and protection’. She was not so fortunate on the second occasion.
There is no reason why being protected from a violent partner or ex-partner should be down to luck. In fact it is absolutely lawless, not to mention preposterous. According to the Domestic Violence Act of Guyana (1996), police officers have a critical role to play in upholding and enforcing this law. Apart from arresting and charging abusers, they can file applications in court on behalf of the abused, take victims for medical attention and ensure they are moved to a safe place if necessary.
Nowhere in the Act is it stated that victims making reports or seeking assistance have to go to a specific police station, or even the nearest one. Nor is there any recommendation for a specific officer to deal with domestic violence reports. A few years ago, it was noted that new and revamped police stations were incorporating a special interview room for dealing with domestic violence reports and this is welcome. However, all police officers have to be trained to deal with gender-based violence just the same as they are for murder inquiries, walking the beat, traffic duties or taking statements. Domestic violence is a crime. It is rampant and it affects the general population. It requires police action and all police officers must be prepared to act.
The order Ms Singh was reported to be seeking prior to her murder is referred to as a protection order in the Domestic Violence Act. It is issued by the court and can be filed for by the person who is being abused, a social worker or a police officer. It is usually not a complicated procedure. There is a form that has to be filled up in order to complete the application. Were Ms Singh fully au fait with the provisions of the Act, she could have approached the court for the order herself. There are many other women who are unaware of this which indicates the need for wider education on this issue in simple language that reaches women in their homes and communities.
This does not negate the fact that Ms Singh visited not one, but two police stations in the same week she was murdered and at neither place did any police officer inform her that she just needed to approach the court, nor did they offer or attempt to file the application for her. The protection order she sought, which ostensibly prevents the abuser from going anywhere near, stalking or harassing the victim among other things, might not have saved Ms Singh’s life, as there are instances where abusers violate them. However, since it had restrained her former partner in the past, perhaps it could have done so again. Ms Singh obviously believed it would and therefore had sought to obtain it.
It is worth mentioning here that under the law, the protection order is meant to guarantee the victim’s safety, well-being and health. Obviously, the court document, which in reality is a piece of paper, cannot do that. However, that paper has, or is meant to have, the weight of the law behind it, which means an abuser who violates it can be arrested without a warrant and ultimately face a fine of up to a paltry $10,000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. That is provided the police stop slacking off and do their jobs.
Zero tolerance against domestic violence, as is touted by the government, must also encompass the instances of police insouciance, callousness and downright dereliction of duty where these occur, as often, in the final analysis, they result in women’s deaths. In the matter of gender-based violence ‘service and protection’ is a toss up; this should not be. The work that still needs to be done must start now.
