Opposition silence on exoneration of treason accused revealing

Apr 05, 2012 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,
Guyana is certainly a fascinating country, where we are witnessing two contrasting opposition reactions to the judicial exoneration in two high profile cases.  Let’s hope that democracy in our country will continue to permit the right to a fair trial with the concomitant press freedom which safeguards it. However, the hubbub over Chief Justice Ian Chang’s dismissal of the rape charges against Police Commissioner Mr. Henry Greene, and lack of it against Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry’s dismissal of treason charges against GDF Major Bruce Munroe, his wife Carol Ann Munroe and ex GDF soldier Leonard Wharton, cannot be more striking.
Do the GHRA, APNU and Red Thread support treason in Guyana? I doubt it. Their failure, nay silence, in acknowledging the judiciary’s decision on the treason dismissal certainly bespeaks their duplicity and creates doubt. What are their true motives and intentions in their selective displeasure?
Peeping Tom in his column of 4-2-12 in KN titled “the GHRA must also respect the human rights of the Commissioner of Police” dealt with the dismissal of charges against Commissioner Greene. Now Mr. Mike McCormick’s Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), APNU and Red Thread, are up in arms against Chief Justice Ian Chang’s decision to dismiss the charges. Such blatant attacks on the judiciary are unprecedented in Guyana.
How does one interpret the deafening opposition silence with Chief Magistrate Ms Priya Sewnarine-Beharry’s dismissal of charges against the treason accused trio? Was justice served?  Should the DPP appeal the treason decision like APNU now demands against Commissioner Greene? Were the ill-equipped police prosecutors unable to prove their case against a defence battery of highly trained lawyers?
One cannot help noting the high-profile GDF association of the treason accused. Any plot to overthrow any democratically elected government by any segment of the military can only evoke images of the unprecedented horror, danger, violence and confusion which would ensue, especially in Guyana. Yet, GHRA’s opening salvo on the judiciary seems unmindful of the human rights mayhem and resulting carnage which its contrasting opinions neglect in such an inevitable scenario.  This is profoundly disturbing given all its sanctimonious platitudes of championing human rights equally and fairly for all. If all are equal, some cannot be more unequal than others.
No one can seriously believe that APNU’s Mr. Granger, as a former Commander of the  GDF and a head of any alternative government, would  be thrilled with any reports, whatsoever, of army ranks seeking to overthrow any democratically elected government which he may head. Absolutely not!
In the meantime, no one can be happy when a woman claims to have been raped. This is completely unacceptable.  In all cases the law must take its natural course. Of course one cannot ignore Mr. Wrickford Dalgetty’s salient point in his letter to SN 4-2-12 titled “the Chief Justice concerns and questions in the Greene case went to the core of evidentiary accumulation and analysis”.
Mr. Dalgetty pointed out, “for example, (that) it is reasonable to expect that an aggrieved rape victim would make a police report immediately after the carnal violation has occurred. At the same time, the wider the gap grows between the alleged crime and the complaint, the lesser would be the credibility of the eventual complaint.”
When the alleged rape victim therefore never reported any rape to the police, it did not help her case. Considering she continued to have liaisons with the Commissioner does her story no credit.  Such liaisons could not have occurred against her will, but by consent. Mr. Dalgetty therefore had no alternative but to agree that Chief Justice Ian Chang’s decision was sound, valid and correct.
This brings into focus the GHRA’s concerns for the woman’s welfare. This can only be commendable. But Guyana faces far more significant danger when soldiers are charged with treason to overthrow a democratically elected government. Yet the same GHRA could not rally against any potential threat of violence in overthrowing a democratic government; especially the carnage which potentially threatens the human rights of thousands of Guyanese lives in any likely bloodletting.
Something is amiss when Mr. McCormick’s GHRA enjoins with one woman and neglects the human rights of all Guyanese. Whenever Mr. McCormick’s GHRA continues to exhibit such blatant biases it will always be suspect, discredited and must be held accountable.  Sir VS Naipaul’s Miguel Street exhortation to “watch him while he watch the bees” is most appropriate.
One can however certainly understand the angst of Ms Karen de Souza and Red Thread, who are upset that a woman had such a public tryst with a public official and came out the loser. The law is said to be very blind and does not judge morality; she has had her day in court and she lost. Not totally.
Now GHRA, APNU and Red Thread can put their money where they are putting their mouths. They can financially …yes, give her the money and legal expertise … to empower the “option to appeal the decision and to take it all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice”; exactly as Peeping Tom suggested.
Let justice run its natural course, with all its current bold champions honourably leading her rehabilitation.
Sultan Mohamed

---

---