I would like to draw your readers’ attention to an article in Saturday July 10, 2010 edition of the Kaieteur News which had the headline “Magistrate Critical of Sexual Offenses Bill.”

The article reported that Magistrate Chandra Sohan had said that he had not seen a copy of the Sexual Offenses Bill until three weeks ago and that, although the bill has harsh penalties, in the past six months there has been an increase in sexual crimes and he was not sure the legislation would be a deterrent.

I would like to ask, Mr. Editor, why Mr. Sohan, a magistrate, waited over two years to say what he is saying now. I would like to know, Mr. Editor, where Mr. Sohan was when the consultation paper on the sexual violence bill was in review in several regions in Guyana. Did he not see it as his business to attend any of these consultations, or to ask in his capacity as a magistrate for a copy?
According to the article the magistrate also said that the legislation was “copy cat” and that the Sexual Offences Bill had its genesis back in 2007 after groups in the society called upon the Ministry of Human Services to revise the rape laws as well as to coin a more comprehensive definition of rape. What is wrong with this man? Why would he want to call the legislation copycat when the consultation paper was subject to extensive review by communities, NGOs and professionals?

Moreover: how can he say that although the penalties in the sexual violence legislation are harsh he still sees an increase in sexual offences in the past six months when the bill was only passed on the 22nd April 2010 in Parliament (less than 3 months ago) and assented into law by the President on the 24th May 2010 (less than two months ago)? This is not only a foolish statement by the magistrate, but also a dangerous one. How can a man who should know about laws make such a statement without first checking his facts?

Something is very wrong in the judicial system if no other magistrate or judge comes out publicly to ask Mr Sohan what he is really trying to say.

The report went on to state that the magistrate credited vanity and promiscuous lifestyles among young girls with the upsurge in sexual crimes. I would like to ask Mr. Sohan if that was what he was taught in law school – blame the victims. Mr. Sohan is speaking like a defence lawyer who tries his/her best to represent the client at all costs, not caring that he/she is putting the victims through the same ordeal twice. If this is the approach Mr. Sohan takes, I would not like to be sexually abused and have my matter come up before him. It would be best for me to say openly in court that I have already lost my case.

How promiscuous is a ten month old baby or a three year old child? I think the magistrate should check the records and see how many infants and small children have been sexually molested in recent years.  And, it should be noted, sexual abuse or sexual violence is NEVER the victim’s fault! Whatever her/his age!

Mr. Sohan reportedly went on to question the distribution of condoms in prison and expressed disappointment in the practice. Mr. Editor, Mr. Sohan lives in Guyana and as such he of all persons should know what takes place in prisons. Before he voiced his disappointment he should have made recommendations on how to stop sex in prisons and there would be no need for distribution of condoms among prisoners.

In closing Mr. Editor, I would like to say that an accountant deals with numbers, a doctor deals with patients, I would like to ask Mr. Sohan – what does a magistrate deal with?