Dear Editor,
As someone who has studied American constitutional law and politics at the doctoral level, I agree with GHK Lall’s argument that “Innocent until proven guilty must remain (SN Jul 4). He is spot on. It is also the law in our country and globally. The result may not be favorable to most but it is the law.
Much ink has been spent on the Dharamlall matter and justifiably so. It is/was a very emotive allegation – the entire Guyanese universe and beyond the past judgment of guilt. There was outrage and public protests. One expects wrath and rage from the serious allegations. Regrettably, the allegations were politicized especially by the accused detractors (and he has many that he created) and political opponents (of himself and his party). And understandably given the gravity of the allegations, most or many of the commentaries rendered the accused guilty and lynched him in the press (including social media). I also chimed in but without pre-judgment. How many of those who voiced an opinion and or condemn the accused really care for the alleged victim?
As law-abiding persons, we ought to reserve judgment on allegations until a court passes a verdict unless an accused pleads guilty. The accused denied the alleged crimes.
In a democracy, especially in developed countries like the UK, US, and Canada where most of the diaspora resides, and at home, an accused is innocent until convicted. One is entitled to due process (including the right to a lawyer). In democracies, even mass rapists and mass murderers are entitled to and given “due process” – a basic principle in law entitling one to a fair hearing (trial) and the opportunity to a defense (face a complainant’s allegations). In the US, the state pays a lawyer (if he so desires one and if he can’t afford the cost) to defend an accused.
The complainant was heard. Her allegations were not ignored by the President or the government. He referred it to the police; that is the judicial process when there is an allegation of a crime. There was an investigation of the allegations by the police and the DPP. As that was going on, the accused rightly recused himself from his job (requested a leave of absence until the matter was investigated and heard – tried in a court). The President wisely acquiesced, granting leave and appointing others to carry out the Minister’s responsibilities.
The accused should be nowhere near or seemingly have any influence over or contaminate the investigations. The complainant, for whatever reasons, and there are many speculations without evidence, withdrew the complaint. According to Guyanese law, and indeed the law of mature democratic countries like America, the matter cannot proceed without a complainant or victim no matter how egregious the allegations and regardless of how the public feels. The law does not function on emotions but on facts and evidence (true or false). There can be no conviction on mere allegations or without a complainant. The teenager is unwilling to go forward.
In any crime, there is an established laid down process and that process has to be followed regardless of status. Due process may take time, but this centuries-old dictum must be followed. One must not be emotive about the matter. Politics must have no role in it. But in our country, everything is politicized. Opponents smell ‘political red meat’ and as expected want to exploit it, seeking to make gains among voters. Every opposition politician acts this way in virtually all countries. Logic, reason, and law give way to politics and the public loves it. Opponents called for the accused’s head. He tendered his resignation from parliament and cabinet, and it is/was the wise thing to do given the anger or fury that followed the allegations. In resigning, he also shifts focus away from himself and the work of the government so that the nation’s work (law-making, development, etc.) can continue. The politics of the allegation should end or else it will destroy any basis for moving forward. Lessons should be learned and laws enforced.
Politicians and the public ought to take note that no political party has a monopoly on bad behavior or on allegations (particularly of a sexual nature). Some engage in duplicitous behavior – selectively condemn some politicians accused of wrongdoing and not others for similar allegations. They are more concerned about politics (benefits arising from the allegations) rather than the welfare of victims. It is noted that hardly any of those who condemn the accused are really concerned about the welfare of the alleged victim. What has been done to assist the alleged victim and her family? How many have proposed assistance to her?
The official opposition faced many sex allegations when it was in government during its 33 years in office and several were mishandled resulting in acquittal in court. Once the judicial or due process was completed, the accused did not resign; there were several such cases. The then opposition ended ‘the politics’ of the allegations. The work of the then government and opposition continued. Political normalcy returned.
Allegations of rape and domestic violence, indeed of any allegation of a crime, must never be tolerated and certainly not those in which politicians are the accused. But one cannot be denied a fundamental right such as due process because one is a politician or because one is disliked. The law does not work that way. The judicial system has to take its course and it did in Guyana.
While many or most may not like the ending, the process worked. The accused was investigated and will not be tried in court, but he has been tried by the court of public opinion. He is gone. And many say good riddance. The politics of capitalizing on the pain of both the alleged victim and accused should also end. Parliament must now work on a code of ethics and political parties must hold their members accountable.
Yours Truly,
Vishnu Bisram
