Dear Editor
I AM the father of three children — two females and a male — and the grandfather of a beautiful grand-daughter, no one else but I have stood at the helm of my children’s upbringing.
Their collective interests and the society they must live in are important to me. The contents of this letter is directed to the lawmakers of my country and composed against a recent experience I witnessed when a close male relative was placed before the magistrates in Courts 8 &9. My concern is whether the laws concerning the following content of this letter can be measured against the blindfolded Maat of the unbiased scales of Justice or whether human preferences tipped the scale towards some ‘Feelings’ driven, popular cause of the day, directed at a deliberate male imbalance.

Two young people who have known each other for over a decade and were a few years prior to 2016, in a short relationship came together on the 29, November 2016. The female arrived in the country reportedly from London, where she is based, to the place of stay of the young man who had had some bad experiences from which he had recovered, and was still recovering from. She is to return soon, so the young man requests that she stays the two weeks. This is allowed, the unexpected follows next. The two weeks have been extended, despite protests from his parents. Without the engagement of his parents they are married the following January 27. The new wife claims that she is pregnant in mid-December.

The new husband accepts. Then by mid-April he discovers that she did not come to Guyana from London as she had said, but that she had left three months before and had gone to Suriname where she had lived with a man there, before coming to his place of abode. Fate would have it that the man is the father of the new husband’s God son; still rooted in his parents’ home, their presence becomes unbearable, his parents demand that she leaves.
By May they were separated completely as other issues on the new wife’s character began to emerge. He proceeded to legal aid to proceed with a divorce. His family had cautioned him about the innocent involved and since infidelity is a rebuttal of marriage, the question of a paternity test must be an option, this was well agreed. The wife subsequently took him to court for support of the child which the law of marriage dictates is his, whether he acknowledges it by signature or not, what a Law!.

The case proceeds in the context of ‘Child Support’. The wife has a lawyer, he doesn’t. This is important as it seems to determine how the scales may be tipped. The evidence is given all of the above in specifics are articulated. The magistrate states that the contention presented by the estranged husband is not for her court. Her Worship refuses evidence to the contention from the husband, then rules that regardless of his contention which is ignored by the court, that he must pay both wife and child a weekly sum. The problem here is that if infidelity proven is a repudiation of marriage, then how come its argument and evidence are not entertained or directed to some existing legal forum of mediation? If the court is limited as implied by the magistrate to deal with such matters as stated by the husband, would it not be unjust to pronounce against him, having denied him his right to defence?.

It is the Law or the Magistrate? If it is the Law, then is this law contrived to push men to the dark side; are the courts not subject to a semblance of fairness. During the three engagements that I endured, there is no doubt that this area of the Law is tedious, but I saw no evidence of a middle ground where contentious testimony is weighted. I would have thought that equal grounds of contention must be entertained. To heap contempt on a situation, is when the court acknowledges that the husband is not working, declares his evidence and contention as untenable, yet proceeds, telling him that he worked in the past so he is threatened to find money by any means to fulfil the conclusion of a good court day. How is this to be construed? There has to be another word, other than justice.

Regards
Barrington Braithwaite