Dear Editor,
The greatest enemy of Truth used to be practical applications of Adolph Hitler’s ‘Big Lie’ theory (Mein Kampf 1925); now (for Guyanese) it is the Cybercrime Act of 2018 and the (self-serving) use of Section 19(5) by the Guyana Police Force.
Cybercrime charges have been brought against a whistleblower in Ricardo Fagundes’s murder investigation, Sergeant Dion Bascom, for statements Bascom made during a press conference held by his attorney Nigel Hughes at the offices of Hughes, Fields, and Stoby. The Par-ticulars of Offence reads “Defendant: On Friday 19th August 2022, at Hadfield Street, Georgetown, in the Georgetown Magisterial District, used a computer to transmit electronic data with attempt to humiliate, harass or cause emotional distress to Superintendant Chabinauth Singh”. Sergeant Bascom at no time during this Press Conference used a computer; it would be members of the press corps who would have broadcast or reported on the contents who are the parties responsible for the offending electronic transmission, or Attorney Nigel Hughes who held the presser. These facts are (seemingly) lost on the DPP.
The veracity of Dion Bascom’s statements is already the subject of Libel lawsuits brought by businessman Azruddin Mohammed and Superintendant Mitchell Ceasar, which is the traditional way of inquiry; in advising criminal charges it would seem the DPP has come to a verdict of her own making. Interestingly, in instructing the dismissal of Bascom’s private criminal charge against the GPF’s Crime Chief, Wendell Blanhum, the DPP has also decided on Blanhum’s innocence without a cursory examination of any evidence, Bascom’s attorney publicly declared at a presser (16.09.22) that he would have willingly provided upon request. The DPP should be required as is every public official to provide her reasons for discontinuing the proceedings. So far, this is only mandated if the decision is challenged by the Judicial Review Act; and there was no indication if the Act would be utilized to challenge the decision. Time will tell on that, but the DPP must make it make sense and should tell the public her reasons.
That a Guyanese can now be charged for speaking what he/she deems to be the truth at a press conference is unfathomable; for it to have been on the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecution is abominable. During the debate on the passage of the Cybercrime Act in 2018, there was a strenuous objection from diverse areas of the political spectrum, including MP Nigel Dharamlall, Author Ruel Johnson and myself (S.N 2018.05.03) who all zeroed in on Section 18, fearing that the law would be used to suppress political thought opposed to the government of the day, it is clear now that we were too narrow in our focus.
Editor, how can one be an activist for any cause when our words (especially truth) offend those who would be affected by the change we desire? I do not doubt that my written and spoken words cause emotional distress and possibly humiliation to many; will you (Editor) soon be charged with printing (electronic publishing) my letters and your Editorials? For surely those also cause emotional distress daily. How soon before we descend further into this Orwellian dystopia if the Guyana Police Force has its way? Can we expect a name change to the Guyana Thought Police Force …?
Oscar Wilde famously said “if you’re going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh or they will kill you” if the GPF/cyber /thought police / have their way we may soon be reduced to a nation of clowns, jesters or jailbirds… Say did you hear the one about the letter writer who had to share a cell with a fowl thief?
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
