The actions of SOCU seem to be politically motivated

Dec 28, 2022 Letters

Dear Editor,

Totalitarian regimes politically control the judiciary and police. In many cases, but not entirely, these regimes use political connections and influence to cause these institutions to take actions on their behalf for any multitude of reasons.

This thought resonated strongly with me while reading a news report of the charges brought against Carol Smith Joseph by SOCU. Recently, whether legally or publicly acknowledged by the Government, SOCU violate the rights of Attorney-at-law Ms. Tamieka Clarke and her client when as she alleges: (a) when the GPF: (1) arrested her (i.e. Ms. Tamieka Clarke) for advising her client to exercise his constitutionally protected right not to sign a prepared statement by the SOCU. Yes, SOCU, the investigating organization and a unit of the GPF, the agency that would be responsible for prosecuting Ms. Clarke’s client.

Whether you wear your political party on your sleeve, you’re a silent or non-active supporter of the current PPP Government, the APNU, AFC or any other party in the Parliament, I hope you understand that the actions of SOCU as related by Ms. Clarke, her counsel and client represent the most dangerous violation of our Constitution, since the days of openly rigged elections knowingly, whether by omission or commission, went along with Burnham’s plans to continuously secure his and his party’s re-election desires. The action by SOCU and is a most dangerous action, made even more grave when one considers that the State, through the Ministry of Home Affairs perhaps did not use the opportunity to firmly register its expectation that all officers are bound by the Constitution, and must legally respect the rights and freedoms of all citizens, whether they are under investigation, alleged to have committed a crime, have committed a crime or is guilty of that crime.

Historically and more recently, there have been other instances of the State violating constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights of persons by post 1992 PPP Governments and elections and by the PNC between 1968 to 1987. The actions Attorney-at-law Tamieka Clarke and her client alleges Superintendent Krishnadat Ramana and SOCU of are more than a violation of the constitution, they were premeditated and willful which indicates malicious intent to: firstly, cause harm to the attorney by threatening to arrest her if she advised her client to remain silent and he did so, in this case remaining silent meant not signing a statement SOCU prepared for him. Secondly, by arresting and detaining her until she was released only after the Head of SOCU intervened and instructed that she be freed. Thirdly, it was already stated that Ms. Clarke’s revelations indicate that the Superintendent and SOCU violated Guyana’s constitution. I can only speculate that the DPP’s discontinuance of private criminal charges against Superintendent Krishnadat Ramana and others, despite premeditation and willful intent, means that Mr. Krishnadat Ramana, as holding the rank of Superintendent in the GPF, and an organizational member of the SOCU did not act on his own accord. At the minimum and irrespective of whether he was instructed or considered the repercussions inconsequential, the alleged conduct is reckless and negligent, unfitting for the rank of Superintendent.

I sincerely hope the Guyana Bar Association must recognize the significance of the case brought against the State by Attorney-at-law Tamieka Clarke, and not take its proverbial foot off the gas. This is one of those moments that we will either look back in history and say, “this is where our descent into tyranny was demonstrated but nobody saw it for what it really was at the time”, or “we worked diligently to safeguard the integrity of Guyana’s constitution, the glue that literally holds Guyanese society together peacefully. Justice was victorious.”

Back to Carol Joseph, the former Director of MARDS between July 2015 and June 2018. It is alleged that from June to August 2016, she undertook 14 transactions unknowingly to the Board and therefore, without its approval. Secondly, SOCU alleges, based on reports it has received, that these transactions personally benefited Ms. Joseph. Whether these transactions involved allocation of assets or funds that were directly used by Carol Joseph in her personal capacity, channeled to her through intermediaries and other details were not reported. Assuming that SOCU has determined that the evidence it has is clear and compelling, this is an open and shut case. The burden is on SOCU based on their investigations to: (1) prove without a show of a doubt that the transactions were unauthorized, unlawful and personally and (2) Ms. Joseph directly or through an intermediary, personally received and benefitted from the 14 transactions.

Guyana is paying attention, watching SOCU and these cases keenly, for we are aware that the politicization and weaponization of SOCU or any other State agency against members of the public, for any reason, causes and is a recipe for instability and tyranny.

Regards,

C. Singh