With the questionable decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to advise the police that there was no provision for a charge of rape to be brought against the Minister of Local Government, Nigel Dharamlall, the government no doubt feels it has avoided the jeopardy of a senior official having to face a serious indictment in court.
However, the fallout is only just beginning. Mr Dharamlall’s swift resignation from parliament is the first clear evidence. There was no way given the damning allegations against him that Mr Dharamlall could continue in Parliament as he would have been a lightning rod for protests and would have galvanised opposition forces.
In what appeared to be a well-scripted series of events, President Ali issued a statement from Trinidad following the DPP’s advice and a police release on the matter. There were two troubling facets of the President’s statement. First, there was not an iota of concern or support expressed for the vulnerable complainant in this matter who has endured a harrowing experience. It was as if the President had no concern about her welfare despite the public statements of two of his ministers about the efforts they had taken on her behalf. Second, in what was a most ill-advised and insensitive statement, the President sought to give an assurance to his base.
“Nigel Dharamlall has committed to me that he will continue to support and be a member of the People’s Progressive Party and also be supportive of the government”, said the President. Notwithstanding, the serious allegation against Mr Dharamlall, the President put the concerns of the supporters of his party and government ahead of everything else. In essence he was saying that even though Mr Dharamlall has been forced to step away he is still with us and we with him.
It appears to have escaped the President and many of his supporters that Mr Dharamlall has not been cleared of anything. All that has happened here is that the DPP has asserted that there is no provision for a charge as the complainant has signified that she no longer wants to proceed. This decision not to want to proceed has also come amid reports that monetary factors had come into play.
So the President and his administration have not escaped accountability for anything as yet. It remains the case that Mr Dharamlall is under a cloud of having engaged in the offence of grooming an underage girl after coming into contact with her during his official functions and then after she had reached the age of sexual consent he proceeded to pursue her and possibly worse.
It is the responsibility of the President and his government to conduct their own investigation to determine whether there was a culture of permissiveness that empowered Mr Dharamlall to possibly groom this child. Was there evidence of inappropriate correspondence and contact between Mr Dharamlall and this child culminating in her visit to his premises? Is it appropriate for a person in his position of power and authority to be engaged in such conduct? Shouldn’t the President be sounding an admonition against such behaviour rather than assuring his base that Mr Dharamlall was still with them? The bottom line is President Ali should be seeking to determine whether Minister Dharamlall abused his office to establish contact with the complainant and what this could possibly mean for the way in which his government has been oblivious to what was happening.
This case has made a mockery of legislative provisions for childcare and protection. The Childcare and Protection Agency (CPA) stands accused of denying this child access to private counsel and of keeping her in conditions that might have frustrated her and left her open to adverse influences. The non-governmental organisations which have been enlisted to conduct so-called forensic interviews under the purview of the CPA have also had many questions raised about what exactly they did in between the period the girl came under the protection of the CPA and up to the point at which she was advised of, and was convinced to take the route of a ‘No further action’ statement. There needs to be an investigation of the CPA’s handling of the case and it would be up to the Minister of Human Services to initiate such.
As for the DPP, the Chambers still has to explain why it dithered for days before surprisingly asking for further investigations in the matter. As has been asked before, what further investigations were necessary? The DPP has to be accountable to the public.
Child advocates and agencies committed to ensuring that children are not exploited and abused particularly by those wielding power will be appalled at the handling of this case by the authorities. At this stage the most important consideration must be to provide all the necessary assistance possible to the complainant and to help her to navigate what can be a very cruel public. Given the smallness of this society and the fact that many mistakes have been made in handling her case which could have exposed her, she should be given the option of being relocated from where she lives.
The case against Mr Dharamlall is a chastening lesson for this administration and one that it must use to improve the protection offered to children who are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
