Dear Editor,
I have been listening to Observer Radio (Sunday Evening Program: “The Big Issues.”) The conversation was very interesting, building as it did on misconduct by elected officials in two Caribbean countries, Antigua and Anguilla. This misconduct is nothing of the dimensions being experienced in Guyana today. They are talking of threats after, what I may call intense provocation of a woman, threats to a man after she lost her temper, and something of similar nature. But the spirit and seriousness of which citizens engaged in the discussion was exemplary. There was no looking over the shoulder at the authorities. Citizens of Guyana at home and abroad would benefit from listening to this discussion. Still there was no mention of Guyana, where the biggest allegation of misconduct by government currently prevails. This was very instructive. It shows countries are respected for various reasons, including their budgets.
I have always suspected that attorney generals in Guyana have an overarching role in prosecution. I record this not out of malice. But I once had an exchange with Attorney General, Mr. Ramson, in the press, when he had said to the media, that attorney generals cannot prosecute, but may behind the scenes give advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). I leaped on him and said “No, you can’t.” He has said, he does “not remember the incident.” And I believe him, but perhaps it was a trifling incident in his life. I was once cross examined on zoom and questioned when I and Dr. David Hinds sued The Chronicle for libel. The presiding judge was Mr. Justice Roy. I persuaded Dr. Hinds to join me in suing The Chronicle (the government publication). This was in response to the claim that we “both wished to see the destruction of Indians.” The Chronicle was not able to prevail in this exchange.
May I now offer to the public, since the media cannot do it, or perhaps, should not do it, how I once intervened in a rape case, as Member of Parliament, where I had no power, except I was publisher of Dayclean, the Working Peoples’ Alliance (WPA) publication, and I wrote there and also in Open Word, published by Brian Rodway. I wrote many unsigned articles in both newspapers. The case had come to my knowledge through a woman’s husband. My lawyer, Mr. Bayney Karran, put me in the witness stand in the High Court, before Mr. Justice Loris Ganpatsingh and the plaintiffs. The four policemen, were represented by the Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Robinson. It was a tense moment. I answered the questions.
The Judge joined the cross-examination: “Did you believe this report?” I said: “Yes.” I went on to say why I published it because it had come from the husband. The Judge interrupted: “I don’t want to know why you published it. It is sufficient that you believed the report.” The Judge then said he was setting a date for the policemen to show up. They did not show. He set a later date and said that that would be a “peremptory” date and “would not be varied.” They did not show again. The Judge said: “Well… the court can draw the inference that the report was correct.” He awarded “costs” to defense counsel. Although the court absolved me of libel, prosecution of the policemen did not follow.
There was another time, where a Minister was accused all over town of making an afront to a woman that appeared in front of him on business. This was not addressed in the media. Almost all media was government owned at that time. I again went public with a headline where I always protect the name of the victim — as must be done in such cases. This was a very interesting episode for me. I had reported under the headline: “Attempted Rape in a Ministry,” and I had described the alleged assailant, as “the country’s best rigger,” as in the fixing of elections, so as to cast some light on his identity. I had not named him. And the woman judge asked me: “Had I any evidence of the rigging?” I proudly said: “No.” I am not a collector of that kind of evidence. I lost the case.
My salary in parliament was garnished, that is, a certain amount was taken out every month. My salary was at the time, by my order, paid into the WPA account (one of the few regular subscriptions they had) and I received an allowance from it. I was fine with my losing the case and my salary being garnished. I could not stand staying silent, for to remain silent was to be complicit in this crime. I went to the woman’s father, a celebrated professional in the city, a well-known member of the PPP. I wished to get a copy of his statement on the matter. He said that “He was out of the country and that it was his brother who saw about his daughter.” I never saw a copy of that statement until some years after when it came into Mr. Moses Bhagwan’s hands. But I took all the steps so that is what one can contribute, with no executive power, to the whole concept of the safety of women’s bodies, not mere idle thought.
I worked closely with the women of the WPA. It may be asked, whether I have ever had the experience of tracking an Indian rapist. The answer is yes. This was the case of a woman of working age who answered a help wanted advertisement at a business place at Camp Street. She had a short interview with a male. According to reports, he began to touch her inappropriately. She resented it, objected, and walked out. She reported it to the nearest police station. The report reached me at Rodney House. The woman had an interview with our sisters in WPA. Then I began to work on the case. Ultimately, I went to the police station, and asked the officer to see the file of this report. He turned around and came back to me and said: “The Minister requested the file.” The Minister was Mr. Gajraj who was sent as Guyana’s High Commissioner to India after he had survived a public inquiry into his conduct as Minister of Home Affairs. We seem to send to India the worst types we have.
While you are digesting this letter, I am preparing another, in which I will come closer to pointing out omissions which I think our law entertains with some invitation to experts to make recommendations.
Sincerely,
Eusi Kwayana
