Latest update August 5th, 2026 1:26 AM
Latest News
- Govt. secretly invited Dutch firm to raise MV Barima long before issuing tender – well-placed sources
- Guyana still to receive full 50% profits promised by VP Jagdeo
- Jagdeo faces hostile Linden protests
- Trump blasts ExxonMobil, Chevron for making “too much money” during war, says companies should lower prices
- GMSA rails against Govt’s $496 million water bottling plant
Henry Greene’s critics are blinded of personal malice
DEAR EDITOR,
I have no doubt about the capability of Justice Chang to ably defend his decision against critics driven to criticize by their personal desire to see Commissioner Henry Greene humbled before the criminal court. It is both amazing and distressing to see how objectivity can be so easily sacrificed at the altar of ad personam malice.
Many years ago around this time of the year, such ad personam malice caused the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, even though it meant freeing the notorious Barabbas.
Some critics have gone so far as to accuse the Chief Justice of being unaware of Section 7 (2) (k) of the Sexual Offences Act 2010 when “the Circumstance of abuse of power or authority to the extent that the complainant could not resist at the time of sexual activity” did not at all arise from the contents of the statements of the accuser.
Indeed, at no time did she say in any of her statements that the fact that Henry Greene was the Commissioner of Police caused her not to resist. Indeed, she claimed that she did resist – despite his position of power and authority.
At no time did she state that she submitted to sexual intercourse because of the position of power or authority of the office of the Commissioner. Indeed, it was Henry Greene’s position of power or authority which caused her to approach him for assistance – even though this would clearly have involved him in perverting the course of criminal justice. She did not fear his position of power or authority. Rather, she desired its abuse for her own benefit.
Since the accuser never claimed that she surrendered her body to the Commissioner because of power or authority, Section 7 (2) (k) clearly did not apply. To accuse the Chief Justice of being unaware of Section 7 (2) (k) was as much presumptuous and contemptuous as it was misconceived. Mental blindness can surely be born of personal malice and blood can surely override intellect.
Blinded of personal malice against Henry Greene, the critics have not seen it fit to ask the pertinent question as to why the DPP did not see fit to advise prosecution against the accuser for the offence of Attempted Extortion committed on another female. After all, she did confess to having attempted to do so. And now, what about her obvious attempt to induce Henry Greene to pervert the course of criminal justice by the return of her cell phone? No eye witness is necessary to establish her guilt. Her own statements tell it all.
Even though Henry Greene is no Jesus Christ, there is no reason to free Barabbas.
Robin Hunte
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.