DEADLY GUARDIANS

Mar 30, 2014 Features / Columnists, Murder and Mystery

– The killing of an orphan boy

By Michael Jordan

On the morning of Tuesday, December 17, 2002 residents of the Greater Georgetown area known as ‘Sophia Front’ made a horrifying find. Lying in a drain near the Liliendaal Railway Embankment was the body of teenage boy. The lad, of East Indian ancestry, was dressed in a blue, long-sleeved shirt, green long pants, and a pair of badly torn desert boots.
Police who examined the body observed black and blue welts and lacerations on the boy’s back. There were also bruises on his chest, a small hole near his left rib cage and a cut on his chin. A post mortem would reveal that he had died of trauma to the head.
But who was this unknown child? Who had inflicted this brutal assault on him? How had his body ended up there?
One resident recalled seeing a navy-blue pickup in the area at around midnight. This led residents to surmise that the victim was killed elsewhere and then dumped at Liliendaal. Days passed, and still the murdered child remained unidentified.
Police issued a detailed description of the victim and his clothing, while appealing for information about his identity. But it would be a week before a breakthrough came.

FREED: Yusuf Rahaman (left) and Nazir Hamid

On Wednesday, December 25, 2002, a man, Khanai Bipat, saw a photograph of the murdered child in the Guyana Chronicle. He immediately realised that the victim bore a disturbing resemblance to one of his nephews. A visit to the Newburg Funeral Parlour confirmed that the slain lad was indeed Bipat’s nephew; 14-year-old Raheem Abdool, who was living at the Shaheed (Sad’r) Boys’ Orphanage in Kitty.
From newspaper reports, the orphanage’s house mother, Bibi Nazz Hakim, claimed that Raheem was last seen asleep on the night of Monday, December 16. The officials allegedly realised that he had disappeared at 4:00 o’clock the next morning when prayers were being said. The house mother claimed that a search of the building revealed that all the doors were still bolted, but a window overlooking an exterior staircase was open. This suggested that the boy had slipped out via that route.
Ms Hakim claimed that Raheem had never spent a night away from the orphanage, and that she had made a report to the Kitty Police Station after 24 hours had elapsed. But the teen’s relatives said that they had checked at the station, and were told that there was no record of such a report between December 16 and Christmas Day.
What was also troubling to the victim’s relatives was that they were only told of the lad’s disappearance on December 22, when his grandmother visited the institution.
But in January 2003, a significant development occurred that shocked the local Islamic community. Detectives arrested 37-year-old Nazir Hamid, the former acting CEO of the Boys Orphanage and Yusuf Rahaman, 26, called ‘Kenneth.
Police suggested that Raheem had been beaten to death while he was being questioned about the disappearance of a sum of money.
On January 22, 2003, the duo appeared in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on charges of murder. According to the charges leveled against the men, on December 16, 2002, at about 4.30 pm, they had accused Raheem Abdool of stealing a quantity of cash. Using a belt from a pair of pants and a canvas fan-belt they allegedly beat him in a spare parts store until he died.
Attorneys Simone Bullen and Paula Gilford, who worked in the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) were appointed to represent the State, while the defendants hired Attorney Vic Puran to represent them.
It was established that a case had been made out for the accused, and the matter was transferred to the High Court before Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh.
During the High Court trial, housemother of the Shaheed Boys’ Orphanage, Bibi Nazz Hakim, testified that acting on instructions from murder accused Nazir Hamid, who was her boss at the time, she had lied to the police and claimed that Raheem Abdool had run away from the institution.
According to the housemother, she had last seen the lad alive on December 16, 2002, when he and the other residents of the orphanage had their morning bath and later ate their breakfast.
Ms. Hakim said Abdool and another resident, Ramo Duke, had left the institution that morning and had gone to K. Rahaman and Sons, a store located at Russell and Evans Streets, Charlestown. She said she had made telephone contact with Rahaman, the number two accused, after Abdool and Duke failed to arrive by 5:30 p.m. for prayers.
According to the housemother, Rahaman told her that Abdool and Duke were packing some items. She stated that she had telephoned again at around 9pm., and Rahaman had again told her that the lads were packing items.
But she alleged that an hour later, Hamid telephoned her and said “Aunty Bibi, Raheem run away from the store this morning.” She said Hamid also warned her not to say that the boy had run away from the store, but to say instead that he had run away from the orphanage. Hamid, she said, had suggested that the personnel of the store would get into “big problem with child labour if the Welfare Department intervenes”.
The housemother stated that on December 17, 2002, she told ranks at the Kitty Police Station that Raheem Abdool had run away from the orphanage.
According to the witness, she never saw Abdool alive again, but Ramo Duke, the other boy who had left the orphanage in Abdool’s company, had returned at 5:30 pm on December 17. She claimed that Duke was subsequently removed from the orphanage by an attorney.
Responding to questions from the defence, who now included Attorney Hukumchand, Hakim admitted that her statement to the police was entirely different to her High Court statement and the one she made during the preliminary inquiry.
She told the court she had regretted lying after she had discovered that Abdool was dead and so had decided to tell the truth.
But she was unable to explain why she had continued to lie to police in separate statements some 14 days after Abdool’s disappearance.
In caution statements to the police, the defendants had claimed that they were victims of a ‘set-up’, which was triggered by a “power struggle” between the Anjuman faction of the Muslim community and the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG). Hamid, the number one accused, also alleged that the individuals had threatened to put him in trouble.
During cross-examination by defence attorney Hukumchand, two police ranks acknowledged that they had not attempted to investigate the allegations that the defendants had made, in which they had named persons in high offices as being part of the alleged conspiracy against them..
Under cross-examination by Mr. Hukumchand, one rank said that although he took the statement in which the accused called the names of individuals who were allegedly waging a war of hate and factionalism against the Anjuman, he (the witness) did not carry out an investigation to ascertain whether the allegation was true or false.
One of the policemen also said that he did not recommend to his superiors that the allegations should be investigated, and, as a consequence, he could not tell whether or not the accused was speaking the truth.
The state’s case had collapsed.
FREED
On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, a jury took just an hour to find the two accused not guilty of murdering Raheem Abdool.
“I wish you all the best in your future life…go in peace,” Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh said, while also telling Hamid and Rahman to thank their God.
But the reputation of the orphanage had been badly damaged. An investigation by the Human Services Ministry allegedly uncovered several instances of child labour and child abuse at the institution. It was alleged by the Ministry that children in the orphanage were being abused and used for labour outside the institution.
MISSING KEY WITNESS
But what of Ramo Duke, the lad who had reportedly accompanied Raheem Abdool on that fateful day of December 16, 2002?
Kaieteur News has confirmed that after Raheem’s murder, Ramo Duke was subsequently interviewed by an attorney, on behalf of Legal Aid. In the presence of that attorney, Duke alleged that he was present when Raheem was slain.
In a statement, also made to police, the boy claimed that he was forced to hold Raheem down while the victim was viciously beaten.
“He told me that he (Raheem) was beaten with a chain…they (the assailants) made him (Duke) hold him (Raheem) down,” the attorney told me.
In his statement, the lad claimed that when the dying boy had pleaded for water, his attackers made him drink water that was dripping from an air condition unit.
According to the attorney, the ‘eyewitness’ was subsequently taken to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Kaieteur News was told that the teen was later placed on a plane, reportedly to be placed in safe keeping. But Ramo Duke never testified, and his whereabouts are unknown. To this day, the attorney worries about his possible fate.
“He was the only witness to say that he saw (the murder); the other evidence (for the prosecution) was hearsay,” the attorney said.
“I really need someone to inquire as to what happened to this child…”

If you have any information about this or any other unusual case, please contact Kaieteur News at our Lot 24 Saffon Street, Charlestown location. We can be reached on telephone numbers 225-8458, 225-8465, 225-8491 or 225-8473. You need not disclose your identity.
You can also contact Michael Jordan at his email address: [email protected]