AN Indo-Guyanese Minister of Government had a private telephone conversation with a member of the media. In this conversation, he used expletives and made some unfortunate remarks. He spoke to the likelihood of certain consequences should a newspaper continue to damage the reputation of innocent people. From all indications he did not contravene any law in that conversation. 

This conversation was, without his consent recorded and made public. There was pandemonium in Guyana. The media came out in all their fury; the human rights associations, were loud in condemnation; lawyers associations were brutal in their judgment and public utterances; the Opposition politicians had a field day. The invasion of privacy was made a non-issue. In a nutshell, they demanded the head of the Minister.
Rewind a little. A few years ago, a former Commissioner of Police’s telephone conversation was recorded as he spoke with a lawyer and the Chairman of the main Opposition party in the country. The recording was done, presumably, without their permission and made public. These gentlemen are Afro-Guyanese. The Police Commissioner has since joined the ranks of the same Opposition party and is now a Member of Parliament for that party. In that conversation, expletives were also used and derogatory remarks about women made. Most importantly, a listener to this conversation heard the then Police Commissioner explaining how he was forced to divert the Police away from Agricola were a massacre was ongoing. Nearly a dozen people died. He said he did it to “help out y’all.” A listener would’ve heard also an offer made to plant drugs on a woman at the airport whom was suspected of stealing money from this political party headquarters.
The very persons and organisations who demanded the head of the indo-Guyanese Minister defended the disclosure of this taped conversation. The basis was that it was an invasion of privacy. The contention was that the invasion of privacy was greater than the content of the conversation. Instead of condemnation, there was support and sympathies. In a nutshell, these two Afro-Guyanese were made into victims for the very reason that the indo Guyanese Minister was made a villain.
Now fast track a little. An Afro-Guyanese lawyer and a Chairman of an Opposition party represents a person (Afro-Guyanese) charged with the murder of 13 persons including women and children (all indo Guyanese). This massacre occurred at Lusignan. The jury sets the accused person free. Subsequently, it was discovered that this defence counsel represented the foreman of the jury (coincidentally, an Afro- Guyanese) in a civil case concluded not long before the murder case commenced but which lasted for seven long years. Both the foreman and the lawyer publicly accepted this fact. However, before the trial commenced both failed to disclose this information to the judge who specifically asked of every member of the jury and the lawyers, whether there was any connection between or among them and also the victims. Subsequently, the glib excuse of the lawyer was that he forgot that he represented the foreman in the civil case. The foreman of the jury had the decency to admit and he was banned for life from jury duties.
Again, not a word of condemnation from any of these persons or organisations, including, the politicians, on this matter. In fact, the Bar Association President said it was not their business.
An examination of the three incidents outlined above should convey the clear impression that the conversation of the Minister pales into insignificance when compared with the conversation and the conduct of those involved in the other two incidents.
I believe serious gross official misconduct and several serious criminal offences may have been committed by persons in the latter two incidents. But rather than condemnation, however, there was either support or silence.
The question that I pose to right thinking members of the public is: “is it race or is it politics”?
I will keep my answer to myself.

FARUK MOHAMED