Scavenging for a living
By Juliet Njeri

Fourteen-year-old Emmanuel Ouma.

Despite health warnings, people living in the slums surrounding the dump rummage through the rubbish for items such as plastic bags that they can sell for a living – and even for food.

"We collect the food that rich people throw away and eat it," Mr Omondi says. "You just remove the parts of it that have gone bad and eat."

Emmanuel Ouma, 14, is an orphan.

"I have been here at the dumpsite for many years," he says. "I collect papers from the dump, and sometimes I get some odd jobs. Sometimes I also pick food from the rubbish, mostly meat."

"Although people say that working at the dumpsite is bad for one's health, I have never had any problems, apart from headaches."

"I don't want to do this work forever. I just want to go to school and stop collecting rubbish."

Wilkista Aoko, right, and Christine Adhiambo.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says toxic substances dumped at the site are putting thousands of people at risk of killer diseases. A study found high levels of lead, mercury and cadmium at the site, as well as hazardous chemical and hospital waste.

But that has not stopped scavengers collecting discarded plastic bags, sacks and other scraps to sell on.

After the bags are salvaged, they are washed in the Nairobi River, which flows alongside the expansive dump.

Wilkista Aoko and Christine Adhiambo are hired to wash the bags. They earn 20 shillings (30 US cents) for every 100 bags they wash.

"I try to wash at least 300 bags, which earns me 60 shillings ($1)," Ms Adhiambo says.

Young Boniface Onyango who wants to be a trained carpenter.

"I come here after school because I want to earn some money," says Boniface Onyango.

"When I wash 100 plastic bags, I get 10 shillings (16 cents). I use this money to buy food and clothes. When I get 20 shillings I take it home and give it to my parents."

His parents have decided to send the 15-year-old to their rural home so that he can concentrate on his studies.

"The money is tempting, but I'd rather go and study there so that I can become a carpenter."

The dump has contributed to the pollution of the Nairobi River, along with human waste that is emptied into it from pit latrines in the neighbouring slums. Men are employed to empty latrines and dump the contents into the river every day.

The polluted river is a serious health hazard.

"I have to keep buying medicine so that I don’t get sick. Once I had pneumonia, and another time I had bloody diarrhea," says Wilkista Aoko.

John Kariuki has been collecting and washing plastic sacks for the last six years.

Daniel Omondi, left, and Wilson Kamau.

"I have not been able to get married and have a family because I don't earn enough money doing this work."

"I have heard that the dump site affects people's health, but I haven't had any problems. If I did, I wouldn't be here," he says.

Once the bags are washed, they are dried in the sun and packed into bundles ready for sale.

The bags are sold to middle-men who sell them to factories for re-use or recycling.

The government has plans to relocate the dump, but this has been opposed by those who make a living from the rubbish.

"It is true that this rubbish is dangerous, but I beg the government to give us some money to start businesses so that we can take care of our families," says Christine Adhiambo.

Daniel Omondi (l) and Wilson Kamau used to scavenge from the dump before they joined a local acrobatic troupe.

"I stopped working at the dump site six years ago because I got a chance to do something else and earn some good money. Also, working here is dangerous, it's not good for one's health," Mr Omondi says.

Mr Kamau worked here for four years. "I will never come back to collecting garbage, I know I'll find something else to do," he says.

Wife killer finds 10-year sentence severe
Appeal Court dismisses case
KISSOON Wazar Alli, who stabbed his wife to death in 1967 and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the lesser count of manslaughter appealed against the sentence saying it was too severe.

But the Court of Appeal, constituted by Chancellor EV Luckhoo, and Justices of Appeal Messrs Guya Persaud and PA Cummings, dismissed the matter and refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

The facts of the case disclosed that the appellant was indicted for murder, but following the Crown’s willingness to accept a plea to the lesser count of manslaughter, the trial judge permitted this to be done, although, on the depositions there was no indication of any circumstances to justify the acceptance of such a plea.

The appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. In his plea for mitigation, counsel said, inter alia, that the appellant had suffered great mental anguish.

He appealed on the ground that the trial judge had made no allowance in his sentencing for the fact that he had plead guilty and had not contested any issue before the court.

The Appellate Court held that: (i) a plea of guilty does not necessarily mean that the prisoner genuinely regrets his act;

((ii) if a sentence appears to be proper and appropriate, it matters not that something was taken into account which ought not to have been or something was not taken into account which ought to have been.

On the facts as appeared in the depositions, there was little, if anything, the judgment said, to mitigate the crime which had been committed, and in any event, if there was remorse, the judge’s memorandum of sentence showed that he must have had it in mind.

In his judgment, Chancellor Luckhoo noted that there was an application in this appeal for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that the judge failed to give adequate consideration to the appellant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter.

He was on a charge of murder when the court, following the Crown’s willingness to accept that plea, permitted this to be done.

The appellant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for what could well be described as a bestial and dastardly act in stabbing his reputed wife at least twice with a knife, which must have been at least 1 ½” in diameter, in the region of the heart and liver, puncturing the apex of the left ventricle, and the lobe of the liver.

The Chancellor went on to say that on the depositions, the learned trial judge on the authority of R v Soanes {1948} 32 CAR 136 would have been entitled to refuse to allow the appellant to plead guilty to manslaughter, because there was no indication on the deposition that circumstances existed to justify the acceptance of that plea.

In other words, no evidence appeared on the record from which it could be said that the deceased had done any act to the appellant which would, and did, cause in him a sudden and temporary loss of self-control rendering him so subject to passion as to make him for the moment not master of his mind.

The Chancellor recalled that Counsel for the appellant had cited the case of R v de Haan {1967} 3 All ER 618 as an authority for the contention that the trial judge had not made any allowance in his sentence for the fact that the appellant had pleaded guilty and had not contested any issue before the court.

He explained that there can be no doubt that credit can be given when a person does plead guilty to the fact that that person is facing up to realities and shows some sign of repentance to justify a reduction from what would otherwise have been the sentence.

Recalling events that led to the murder, the Chancellor said: “In this case, the appellant had gone to his mother-in-law, Seupallie, for lunch, during which he had imbibed a certain quantity of drink. The evidence reveals that three persons drank a quarter bottle of rum. After having his lunch, he returned to his home with his wife and children.

“Seupallie was on her verandah not far from the appellant’s home when she heard talking. Presumably, there was a quarrel. She then saw her daughter go out on her own verandah, and the appellant followed her saying that he was going to kill her, whereupon she said to him: ‘Kill me nah’. He then plunged a knife into her body. Soon after, the daughter fell to the floor and died. Seupallie shouted for help and one Paul Benjamin and another went to the scene.

“There was no evidence that the appellant’s wife had in any way provoked this grave attack on her. Paul Benjamin admitted that he took a piece of wood and struck the appellant on his head for the purpose of disarming him, because, at that point of time, he had a cutlass in his hand.

“The appellant gave up the cutlass and the knife and told people about the place that he had killed his wife, and wanted to be taken to the police station. At the police station, he repeated that statement – that he had killed his wife. He made a written statement to the police in which he said: ‘Ah stab she wid the knife pun she left side because Paul Benjamin, she brother, lash me with a bellnah pon me head.’”

According to evidence led at the preliminary inquiry, the Chancellor said, this Paul Benjamin was not at the appellant’s home at the time the stabbing took place. “He went there afterwards,” he said, adding: “In this setting then, can this court say that that sentence of 10 years was excessive? Or was it not an appropriate sentence?”

On the facts as appeared on the depositions, the Chancellor said, there was little, if anything, in mitigation of the crime. “The appellant,” he said, “had had the benefit of his plea to manslaughter accepted which was an extraordinary advantage in the circumstances. I will assume that there was genuine remorse. Surely, the trial judge must have had this in his mind when he said in his memorandum of sentence: ‘Having agreed in all the circumstances of this case, the character of the defendant and with the hope of effecting a reformation on the defendant…I imposed a sentence of 10 years.’”

Noting that in this instance, it was immaterial whether the appellant’s remorse did or did not enter into the judge’s consideration when imposing sentence , as the sentence on the facts was appropriate and a proper one, Justice Luckhoo said in conclusion:

“It is the judgment of this court, then, that the application for leave to appeal be refused. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.”

This week on Merundoi

A scene from ‘Stelling Talk’, a skit written by Merundoi Inc on the subject of Delayed Initiation and Adherence for Diabetics for the Noitgedacht Wesleyan Church of Wakenaam’s recent Gospel Extravaganza. Here, Gary Hinds makes a firm statement about attending clinic.

In a previous episode, Dr Rodrigues had ordered several tests for Unique, and they’re going to be done this week. What will they reveal???

Devine and Kevin face end-of-term tests with trepidation, as they hope to be promoted in September.

Sunita tests Jason’s resolve and promise to keep in contact with her, while Monica seeks Rosie’s counsel as she faces the true test of her feelings for Lawrence.

Finally, who or what is Usher testing when he makes a late night call to Mark!!!!!

Ensure you tune in this week.

Broadcast times:
98.1 FM Mon & Wed.: 5.45 pm, Tues & Thurs: 2.15pm & Sat: 6pm
VOG Wed. & Fri: 10.05 am & Sun: 2pm
Listen on-line: http://www.merundoi.org.gy
Send your comments to: mail@merundoi.org.gy
Merundoi Inc, 55 Sachi Bazaar & Delhi Sts, Prashad Nagar (227-6937)

Preserving our literary heritage
Whither the bridegrooms
By Petamber Persaud
JUNE is labelled the month of brides. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, so, balancing the equation ought not to be a problem.

As such, I’ve taken the liberty in this article of featuring a few bridegrooms of Guyanese literature; men married to their craft to produce outstanding literary off-springs.

Martin Carter
Martin Carter was born on June 7, 1927, in Georgetown, British Guiana. His father, Victor Emmanuel, was an avid reader and his mother, Violet Eugene Wylde, loved books and enjoyed reciting verses.

Carter went on to write numerous books of poetry, and many books were written about him, including ‘You Are Involved - The Art of Martin Carter’, edited by Stewart Brown; ‘Web of October – Rereading Martin Carter’ by Rupert Roopnaraine; and ‘University of Hunger: Collected Poems & Selected Prose’ by Gemma Robinson. So universally relevant was his writing that some of his works were translated into Spanish, Dutch and recently Hindi.

He was twice honoured by the government of the day: In 1970 when he was conferred The Cacique Crown of Honour (CCH), and in 1994 when he was given The Order of Roraima (OR). That same year also, the Chilean government awarded him the Gabriela Mistral Commemorative Medal.

J W Chinapen
Jacob Williem Chinapen was born on June 17, 1908 at Albion, then a little-known village on the Corentyne Coast of the county of Berbice, and went on to score a number of firsts in various endeavours of life in the colony of British Guiana. He also immortalised his birthplace in ‘Albion Wilds’, a collection of 26 poems, which won him the Jagan Gold Medal for literature - the highest literary award in Guyana, in 1960.

Two pieces of that prize-winning collection became so popular that one, ‘Crossing the Berbice River’ was set to music and placed in the repertoire of national songs, while the other, ‘On the Beach at No 63’, became a hymn to this highly religious nation.

John Agard
John Agard was born on June 21, 1949 in British Guiana, and moved to England in 1977, where he became a touring lecturer for the Commonwealth Institute.

He won the Casa de las America Prize in 1982 for ‘Man to Pan’; was honoured in 1997 with the Paul Hamlyn Award for Poetry; and has won the Guyana Prize for literature in the poetry category on two consecutive occasions, in 1998 for ‘From the Devil’s Pulpit’ and in 2000 for ‘Weblines’.

He is also the author of many children's books, including ‘Lend Me Your Wings’ (1987), which was shortlisted for the Smarties Book Prize; ‘I Din Do Nuttin’, ‘The Calypso Alphabet’, and ‘Grandfather’s Ole Bruk-a-down Car’.

The offspring of these bridegrooms of Guyanese literature are still with us, in our minds, in the bowels of our imagination, entertaining, elucidating, and instructing us.

Responses to this author can be made by telephone @ (592) 226-0065 or by email: oraltradition2002@yahoo.com

Literary update
* Please contact this writer on matters concerning THE LITERARY ARTS for CARIFESTA X to be staged in Guyana from August 22 to August 31, 2008. Look out for details concerning a ‘general meeting’ of local writers, book dealers, performers and enablers of the literary arts.

* Look out for details regarding the production of THE GUYANA ANNUAL 2008-2009. This special souvenir edition will mark Edgar Mittelholzer’s 100th birth anniversary. We are inviting short articles, reminiscences and titbits to this effect.

American film classics (Part VI)
‘THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW’. 1944, B&W, United Artists. Directed by Fritz Lang, Starring: Edward. G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, and Dan Duryea.
THERE are works of art that simply tell stories – whether in fiction, poetry, theatre or film – and then there are outstanding and perennially valuable works of art which are not simply about the stories they convey, but about the REACTION of the reader or viewer to such works. In other words, their topic is about the effect of their style on your mind, your assumptions, attitude and opinions about art, and how it is expected to be made.

‘The Woman In The Window’ is such a film classic, made by one of the greatest European film directors, German-born Fritz Lang, who fled Nazi Germany for Hollywood, and quickly gained a reputation and respect for the artistic brilliance and social consciousness he brought to American Cinema. Lang left us only powerful and unforgettable films, such as ‘Fury’, ‘You Only Live Once’, ‘Scarlet Street’, ‘Clash by Night’, and ‘The Big Heat’.

What is also interesting is to consider Fritz Lang’s films like ‘The Woman In The Window’ being shown to Guyanese audiences as it was for at least three decades, from the 1940s to the 1960s, even the 70s. This thought is important because it makes us aware of the high artistic and moral quality of such an unusual film being absorbed by Guyanese collectively in cinemas across the nation during those decades when this film was just one of thousands stored and rented from local film depots. The full impact of what I am saying should gain more weight if we see this film now.

Of course ‘The Woman In The Window’ was advertised from time to time decades ago in local newspapers when it was about to be shown, but by the 1960s, there were probably no cinema posters for the film, so patrons who never saw it would simply have to take a chance on seeing it after reading its hand-written title painted on a poster board. Perhaps the lead stars, Edward G Robinson, a short, highly literate and always intellectually tricky actor, and Joan Bennett, that cute beautiful actress of wonderful tenderness and suave seductiveness, would have thrilled those Guyanese who knew of such great film stars, and influenced them to see the show.

So, imagine one of those cool breezy Georgetown afternoons in the 1940s or 50s, or even the 60s, when life in British Guiana was experienced as normal (apart from the typical local anti-colonial sentiments sweeping the world then); when citizens thought of their nation as home because the greatest films, books, and music affected them daily, and there were almost no public traumas to fear, no exaggerated public ideas about life “getting harder everyday” etc, such as what one hears so much today, perhaps because today’s public has very few intellectual outlets via stimulating and precautionary films like ‘The Woman in The Window’.

The film begins with Edward G Robinson, acting as a middle-aged psychology professor, leaving his quiet suburban conventional family home with his wife and kids, and going off to give a lecture on homicide cases at a big city college. While in the city, he relaxes at a private social club frequented by other professional gentleman friends, like the District Attorney, played cleverly by Raymond Massey.

Then, one evening while relaxing with a book in the club’s library, Robinson dozes off, and when he awakes, decides to take a stroll along the sidewalk outside the club. A figurative painting of a beautiful woman in a store window catches his interest, and while admiring it, a real-life beautiful woman, Joan Bennett, strolls up beside him, and Robinson suddenly realises that she is the exact woman who posed for the portrait he is admiring. They begin an exciting conversation on the painting, since Robinson is an art lover, and Bennett, a beautiful friendly model, says she has other paintings and drawings by the same artist and invites him to see them at her apartment.

Of course, Robinson accepts, since, being a middle-aged academic, it is not often he receives an invitation to socialise with a beautiful artist’s model like Bennett. However, while being entertained by Bennett, a rich friend, a businessman arrives, and a heated argument over Bennett develops between the two men, since Bennett had not revealed that she is a kept woman, the mistress of an egotistic financier. In the physical struggle that develops between Robinson and the man, Robinson defends himself with a sharp scissors Bennett provides, and the man dies from a stab wound to his back while pinning Robinson to the floor.

Suddenly, Robinson realises that his knowledge of criminal psychology can now be put to use to disguise his own guilt and escape conviction. He takes control of the traumatic situation Bennett has got him into, and feelings of romantic love begin to develop between them as she admires the way he keeps his cool and quickly bundles the body into a car and drives way out of the city in the dead of night to deposit it in a desolate woods. They decide to communicate only by phone, almost whispering to each other on the line. When an adventurous Boy Scout exploring the woods discovers the body, the film climbs to brilliant moments of psychological suspense because the District Attorney turns to his fellow club member and friend, the professor of criminology, to help him solve this baffling crime.

So now, the very culprit is advising the authorities on how to solve the murder he has committed! You can imagine the state of Edward G’s tricky mind under such stress, and there are hilarious moments when his actions betray his guilt. But of course, it is out of the question that he could be the culprit, and such scenes end with the District Attorney and his colleagues, along with Edward G, all having a good laugh at these startling coincidences.

Enter Dan Duryea as the dead man’s bodyguard, dressed in typical self-conscious stereotypical gangster fashion with pin-striped suit, black shirt, white tie, etc, checking up on Bennett, whom he already knows of course, and suspects as having something to do with his boss’s demise. One chilling moment occurs when Bennett, acting seductive and kind to Duryea, mixes two drinks for them, but slips a drug into his, hoping to drowse him while she makes her escape. But Duryea is no novice, and says: “You drink mine.” When she refuses, he knows what she was up to, and slaps the glass from her hand, sending it crashing to the floor while delivering a fierce threat. Duryea, however, is also a petty thief, and upon seeing a piece of men’s jewellery, he secretly steals it and, already wanted for various crimes by the police, decides to open fire on them when they approach him in Bennett’s neighbourhood. He is shot and the piece of jewellery found and traced back to his dead boss, so he is tagged with his boss’s murder.

When Bennett realises this from the gossip of a crowd on her street, she phones Robinson to tell him they are now in the clear. But, by now, the professor has fallen into a deep despair over his guilt, and the fact that he has lost his respectability and that his career is over. He takes an overdose of sleeping pills to end his despair, just as his phone keeps ringing off the hook with Bennett’s good news.

It is here that the film comes alive, as the phone keeps ringing in Robinson’s head, and he suddenly awakes to find himself in the club library where he had fallen asleep while reading.

So, the entire story of the film is really a bad dream, and as with dreams, the professor realises that the jovial bellboy is really Dan Duryea, who, in his dream, was cast as the criminal bodyguard of his murder victim. Relieved that none of what he thought he had experienced is true, he decides to take a relaxing stroll. And now, in reality, he sees the portrait of Bennett in the window case, and now, also in reality, she appears, asking if he likes her portrait, etc, but the professor, without hesitation, answers: “No!” and runs away from her in the film’s closing scene.

The point of this brilliant film, which has had many later imitators, all never equal in artistry and style to Lang’s original 1944 version, is that life is better when stories with little or no exaggerated drama occur; or when nothing much happens in real life except, of course, harmless pleasure.

‘The Woman In The Window’ erases our childish dependence on exaggerated dramatic stories, and is the sort of film which perhaps encouraged in Guyanese citizens of past decades, both the habit of appreciating meaningful intelligent and artistically avant-garde films such as this, and the enjoyment of a daily national life where most of the time nothing socially traumatic or too dramatic occurred.