Dear Editor,

“ARE You Not Entertained? Are You Not Entertained? Is This Not Why You Are Here?” the words from the movie, Gladiator, delivered by Maximus came readily to mind very early in the Dharamlall rape allegation, for our social media influencers and followers were behaving much like the mob in that movie, that wanted nothing more than bloodshed and death, a show to distract them from the emptiness of reality. Can we now in sober reality examine these behaviours and how much they affected the child who made the allegations, the system designed to assist and protect victims, and the justice system that must serve all, accuser and accused, equally.

We can begin with the ‘Influencers,’ usually a term used to denote someone who has built a large social media following based on niche expertise, but in the Guyana context is usually someone who connects with humour, empathy, or entertainment; it is through this medium that Guyanese learned of the rape allegations.

Screenshots of text detailing the content of a letter (the actual letter is yet to be seen) were posted on Facebook by Melly Fackin Mel, a foreign-based influencer. The description of the alleged rape was detailed and graphic; the baying for blood began instantaneously. I am yet to discern how the use of this medium/method assisted the alleged victim in any way.

The Ministry of Education was first to act and the Chief Education Officer was tasked with fact-finding: did the person making the allegation exist? If so, was she a student, and were the claims hers? This is something done regularly by the CEO as hundreds of claims are made annually.

The CEO duly made contact and as is his mandate, he made public funds available to the child for travel to Georgetown to make a formal complaint. The child never travelled to Georgetown; instead, she ventured to a police station and distanced herself from the claims. In a departure from the norm, it was a senior officer who took the statement instead of a rank. Social media was again in an uproar as the sum of $10M was reportedly paid to the family of the girl in return for her recanting and this time the Ministry of Human Services entered the fray via formal complaint by the subject minister.

Under current policy, it is not the Child Care and Protection Agency that is tasked with conducting forensic interviews with children. However, this is outsourced to two NGOs, Blossom Inc. and Childlink Guyana. Based on the NGO interview, Dharamlall was invited to the police station for an interview and released on station bail, no charge was laid.

The police sent the investigation file to the DPP for recommendations as is the norm. Social media again went into a spin as the influencers sought rapid action by the DPP and leaked transcripts of the child’s interview to stoke the fires; it became a two-edged sword as it also made the complaint political and introduced different pressures into the equation.

The DPP snapped back at those urging swift decision and then sent the file back to the police for ‘further investigation.’ The police requested an interview with the child but were told that she had made a request of ‘No further action’ and under protocols, there could be no further contact. Without a virtual complainant, the case (such as it existed) against Dharamlall collapsed and the DPP advised that no charges could be brought. It is an unsatisfactory conclusion for the accuser and accused; justice was denied on both counts, one left a victim forever and the other with an indelible stain on character. The social media chorus wailed and gnashed teeth at the ‘failure of the system’ whilst completely absolving themselves of any blame in the process.

President Ali issued a statement within a few hours of the DPP’s recommendation of no charge in which he said Dharamlall had offered his resignation and that it was accepted. Social media outrage followed and the prevalent opinion among the pack was that Dharamlall should have been fired and not allowed to resign. The resignation is a recognition by Dharamlall that he could no longer function as a public official with a target painted on his chest. All it would take is for someone to rip their clothes and run out of his office screaming rape for the rest of his life to be spent behind bars on a false allegation. Discretion is the better part of valor.

We can examine a few aspects of the system under question, was Dharamlall given preferential treatment? From all accounts, it would seem to be mid-range, better than some, worse than others. Station bail was unusually high but four hours detention for questioning is lenient. Was Blossom Inc. experienced and competent to handle such a high-profile case? The interview with the claimant revealed that the letter was written by a Facebook person who had made previous claims against Dharamlall. There are noticeable discrepancies in facts and tone but enough to lay a charge under current laws.

The interview was leaked to the influencers. Blossom Inc. which was charged with the care of the child and the conduct of interviews seems to have placed undue pressure on the child and led to her request of no further action. The system did not completely fail; it was put on a social media clock that ticked incessantly in the ear of the claimant. Every aspect of this case must be independently reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Others failed the claimant. Based on her statement, the claimant did not know the ‘letter’ was out (on social media), and it was never sent to the President as we were led to believe, so who then released the letter and why? The writer and the influencers circulated the letter; there was no consideration of how this would affect the claimant and her right to make claims in her own time, for while there is no statute of limitation, it would be difficult to resurrect this credibly. Was the claimant used as a pawn in a revenge scheme and further abused for the ‘likes’, popular acclaim, and political agendas by the influencers? They failed the claimant collectively, as did a public who put emotion and expediency above justice.

Editor, we seem to be at a crossroads as a nation, when senior lawyers are demanding lynching without trial, when a second-hand account of rape differs significantly from the actual claim, but the second-hand is the one that is given credence because its graphic language appeals to the visceral at the expense of the logical. When we decry a system for failure because it did not lead to the emotive result, nor did it work fast enough to keep up with the daily dose of ‘influence’, then we are indeed headed back to settling disputes with swords (or cutlass) in hand, rumshop style. It is here we should pause and remember why Maximus was angry with the mob; it is because he (Maximus) is a soldier, not a merciless killer who kills for fun. This separates him from the gladiators as one who fights for his county rather than one who fights for the show.
Guyanese need to pick roles best suited to their intellect and leadership capabilities, soldier, Gladiator, or a number of the senseless mob when the next show starts.

Sincerely,
Robin Singh