The Childcare and Protection Agency (CPA) yesterday said that the complainant in the rape allegation against the Minister of Local Government, Nigel Dharamlall had not been denied legal counsel.
Last night’s statement by the CPA follows concerns that had been raised by attorneys that the complainant had been denied access to legal counsel in addition to that available via the CPA.
The CPA said that the child remains in protective care of the agency and is currently being provided with counselling and all other relevant support.
It reiterated that the circulation of the child’s photograph in matters of this nature on social media is unlawful.
It stressed that it “will provide all support and assistance for the child that is needed”.
The CPA further said that Both Assistant Directors, Levine Gouveia and Tionna October have oversight of this matter and refute the mischievous allegations circulating. The CPA did not identify the allegations but the main opposition APNU had alleged that October, a professional with over ten years of experience working under the stewardship of Ann Greene, the former Head of the CPA, was not being utilized.
“Levine Gouveia with less than two years of experience has been identified to handle this sensitive matter. This is unacceptable,” the party said stated on June 22.
In its statement last night, the CPA emphasized that Standard Operating Procedures have been followed throughout the process on this matter and in keeping with the Childcare & Protection Agency Act 46:07, Protection of Children Act 46:06 and the Caribbean Court of Justice-recognized Revised Model Guidelines for Sexual Offence Cases in the Caribbean Region.
The CPA added that a Forensic Interview was conducted according to the Child Advocacy Centre Protocol.
It said that this protocol is known to all the stakeholders including the Guyana Police Force and the Non-Governmental Organizations, ChildLink and Blossom Inc who usually provide the Forensic Interviewing service to CPA in these matters.
It pointed out that the Forensic Interview Report (FIR) has been submitted to the Guyana Police Force which has the responsibility to submit the report to the DPP. The Agency said it will be legally represented by the Solicitor General of Guyana while the DPP’s office will provide representation for the child in the matter. At no time was the child denied additional or private legal representation, it emphasised.
On June 21st, the Childcare and Protection Agency was accused of refusing independent legal representation to the 16-year-old complainant.
According to sources, the mother of the child requested that the girl’s rights be protected by a lawyer and the names of two were suggested. However, so far, no lawyer has met with the child.
Attorney-at-law and former government minister, Khemraj Ramjattan, on June 21st related that he was contacted by the mother of the teen to be present when she was signing her statement and he agreed. However, when he arrived he was barred from providing any legal assistance.
Given his experience, he said that he had informed the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
“She had asked me whether I could be there. When I went around 9 am, the CPA officer in charge informed me of a protocol that exists which does not allow for a private lawyer to be present.
I urged the people present that the girl is entitled to legal representation,” he recounted.
He added that the Child Advocacy Centre (CAC) was also taking a statement yesterday morning from the girl’s younger brother and his presence was again requested, “to just watch that nothing untoward goes on…That request too was denied by both the head of CAC, and the child care officer in charge of the girl. I was informed that I can contact the Director, I immediately called and got no answer.”
Ramjattan, who is also a Member of Parliament, explained that he left after the head of the CAC showed him a room that the brother will be interviewed in, and indicated who will be present in an adjoining room.
One June 21st, the police had defended their conduct of the probe.
“The Guyana Police Force can confirm that all Standard Operating Procedures were followed in the conduct of this investigation. At no time whatsoever were any of the minors involved in this investigation questioned in the absence of a parent and a welfare officer,” the force said in a statement.
It was explained that when the complainant walked investigators through the alleged crime scene, under the supervision of a Superintendent of Police, the accused was not present. The police said he had already left as he was instructed to do by investigators.
One source decried the fact that the child was taken back to the alleged scene of the crime as “this should not have happened.” It was noted that the child had already located the alleged house and to take her in the home was further traumatising her.”
“To take that child where the crime (allegedly) happened should not have been, she would have been terribly affected. The child protection officers should have been able to tell the police no, she has already identified the house and that is enough. More should be done to protect the rights of the child,” a source said.
It was also stated that the agency should have gone to the courts to for a protection order as this would have been the better avenue to protect the rights of the child. However, this newspaper understands that the agency does not have an in-house lawyer as was in the case in the past and as such it is further hamstrung in this aspect.
