The President’s comments on Sharma’s matter were in order

Nov 18, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Following recent reports of sexual violence against the dead and the living, one cannot help but conclude that there are many persons who have been given over to warped and reprobate minds.
The innocence displayed on ignorance has caused bitter experiences to millions of persons and for children worldwide.
I would specifically like to draw attention to a letter written by Raphael Trotman that appeared in the Kaieteur News, entitled, “The President needs to be informed of offering comment on matters that are engaging the attention of the Court”, dated November 05, 2010.
The letter writer was specifically reacting to a report entitled “Jagdeo says DPP must pursue Sharma to ensure prosecution”, dated October 2010. Mr. Sharma is charged with carnal knowledge involving minor(s). It is my humble submission that the President’s comments in respect to this case were in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana and international law.
First, I must state unequivocally that I agree with Mr. Trotman’s submissions in respect to the general rule of sub judice. Further, under national and international law, it is the duty of all public authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused and that the media reporting is in such a way that the guilt of the accused is not pronounced.
Indeed the civil right to due process is clearly articulated under Article 144 of the Constitution of Guyana. My contention with Mr. Trotman’s view  is that the President’s comments analysed from another perspective are in line with the Constitution and international law and that his comments did/do not specifically prejudge the outcome of the trial.
The President’s comments were in line with the principle of the best interest of the child. In all matters affecting children, the paramount consideration shall be the best interest of the child.
Article 38B of the Constitution, enacts that in respect to all judicial proceedings and decisions concerning children undertaken by all bodies, including legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration.
The principle is reiterated under the Convention of the Rights of the Child of 1989 and other international law treaties affecting children.
Specifically in respect to Mr. Sharma case, it is submitted that the accused is a Guyanese politician, a past and future presidential aspirant, a propertied millionaire and a popular TV host. The victim(s) on the other hand are vulnerable persons including children. I do not intend to judge Mr. Sharma, nonetheless based on the statement of the facts,  the accused  had taken these children into his own custody to save them from life’s troubles , promising them a future. Instead, the savior allegedly sexually molesting the very children(victims) he vowed to protect (in this scenario,  the victim being the person whose human rights have been violated, the savage being the violator of the human rights and the savior as the person or entity that saves the victim from the savage).
It’s therefore my submission that the President’s submissions in respect to the matter were in the best interest of the minors.
It is important to consider the timing of the comments.
At the time the comments were made, the unfolding theatricals related to the trial, were evident for all to see. Later, the suspect left the territorial jurisdiction of Guyana to seek medical attention.
He had the right of freedom of movement including the right to leave and return to the country. However, his departure from jurisdiction raised suspicion as to his intentions specifically related to attending this trial.
This view was clearly articulated in a Features/Columnist article in the Kaieteur News paper by Mr. Adam Harris, entitled, “Mr. Sharma’s is a case of note” dated October 24, 2010.
Further, the President’s comments in respect to prosecution should not only be confined to the territorial jurisdiction of Guyana. Had
Mr. Sharma not retuned to Guyana, the next country of his residence would have determined whether to prosecute him under the universal principle, the local laws of that country or even exercised jurisdiction based on agreement.
In the alternative, Guyana would have requested the extradition of the suspect to face prosecution for the carnal knowledge charge against him. Although this scenario was overtaken by events, the DPP would still have had a role to play in ensuring prosecution. I therefore see nothing wrong with the statement in respect to the President ensuring that the DPP seeks prosecution under the prevailing circumstances at the time the comments were made.
Finally, the President’s concerns are further reiterated in a subsequent case involving another child, Neesa Gopaul, who unfortunately, did not live to see justice prevail. I therefore strongly disagree that the President erred in law and in fact when he made the comments in the matter of sexual molestation by Mr. Sharma.
In short Mr. Sharma should not be protected behind the veil of politics and presumed persecution. Efforts must be heightened to protect all persons from sexual violence.
Bibian Isoto

---

---