WHEN the alleged rape case involving Police Commissioner Henry Greene came to light, I intimated that it might not see the light of day in a trial, far less a conviction. The recent decision of the Chief Justice has proven me right. In the first place, this was a highly charged political issue and not a legal one, and courts are not set up for this sort of shenanigans. I know that some people in the political opposition would disagree, citing probable cause that the victim in question is a woman, and society should be protecting these vulnerable persons. Let me make it abundantly clear that I am an aggressive advocate for women’s rights, but in the same vein I am most adverse to women who willingly submit themselves to be used as a political football.
This is quite clear from the case in question, a woman claiming that she was raped one month after the fact. You are talking about a grown woman who has been having an extra marital affair with the Commissioner how many times over then, now, suddenly out of the blues, crying rape. It just does not add up so Justice Ian Chang, quite rightly, in his capacity as chief arbiter, concluded that “the evidence does not disclose a realistic prospect of a case, much less a conviction.”
The matter then whittles down to the ludicrous point of her word pitted against his, a simplistic nonsense that would waste the court’s time.
Some would further argue that the DPP saw merit in the matter going to trial. This was dismissed due to the fact that the DPP bowed to the pressure of a political few and one who did not examine the facts that there is no likelihood of the case succeeding on its merit.
This conclusion I believe the Chief Justice arrived at when the bogus evidence was presented by her medical practitioner, who, by the way, is a political activist for the opposition. This supposedly “smoking gun” evidence submitted amazingly one month after, was considered suspect hence inadmissible. Call it what you may – judge, jury and executioner, Justice Chang had every right to put a stop to this masquerade.

This Guyana rape litigation reminds me of the election case in Florida when the Supreme Court intervened to stop the bogus counting of ballots and promptly declared George Bush the winner.
That case was attempting to set a precedent wherein you change the rules of the game after it has been played which is a definite no, where courts are concerned.

Elections in Florida for many years were conducted via a machine, with only valid votes (those retained by the machine) counted. At the end of the elections there, George Bush was found to have been victorious albeit by a slim majority. The law stipulated that in the event of a close finish there should be an automatic recount which was done and Bush was again declared the winner.
However, someone in the team got the bright idea to delve into the rejected pile and do a recount and off they went.
Details of that case shows the Electoral Officials trying to define votes from the now infamous hanging chads.
This was blatantly illegal you cannot count votes from those that the machine had spat out it was not done in the fourteen years of machine voting why do it now.
So the Supreme Court justices swiftly moved in and quashed that ambitious project.
Our case here bears stark resemblance. How on earth can information, medical or otherwise, be considered evidence a month after the fact? You have no case.