DONALD Trump fancies himself as a “political prisoner” and his echo chamber is keen to amplify a narrative portraying him as a victim of a political witch hunt. Of course, Trump is not a political prisoner and he is not a victim of anything. He is now a felon, a conviction heard with a loud bang around the world.

No such bang here at home for Kidackie Amsterdam. The WPA political operative was cuffed and charged under Guyana’s Cybercrime Act. Kidackie and his entourage of eager supporters are determined to brand him as a political prisoner. He is, of course, not ‘yet’ a prisoner. However, the charges Kidackie faces are a lot more serious than his piffling politics.

Mark Benschop, David Hinds and an ensemble of WPA-PNC party apparatchiks are gung-ho to portray Kidackie as the victim of a political witch hunt. Let’s set aside for a moment the annoying noise of the fiddling duo – Benschop and Hinds – and ask what led to Kidackie’s arrest and why was he charged under Guyana’s Cybercrime Act?

The Act, incidentally, was signed into assent by former President David Granger in 2018. A number of Kidackie’s supporters argue that he, like the majority of Guyanese, may not be familiar with the content of the Act. Is it possible that Kidackie was unaware of the Act he is accused of violating?

Kidackie Amsterdam is a WPA executive member and a long-time party activist. He is also a musician who operates his recording studio in Annandale, East Coast Demerara, where he was arrested last week. On their talk show, Benschop and Hinds demanded that Kidackie be freed and then they dubbed him as “a revolutionary who doesn’t shirk from his responsibility.”

On his LinkedIn page, Kidackie states that he is an administrator with a Community College and listed himself as a former academic instructor with the Guyana Defence Force. He is also apparently a lover of books, stating that he was a former administrative assistant with the Guyana Book Foundation.

Kidackie is a graduate of the University of Guyana’s Mass Communication and Media Studies Department who might have missed the course on journalistic ethics. However, when the Cybercrime Act gained assent, Kidackie was employed as a ‘communication officer’ (CO) at the Department of Public Information (DPI). He might have even been assigned to write a bulletin for publication on the accent of the Act.

I imagine that Kidackie’s media background is the reason he landed the job as host of the Buxtonian Morning Time and the WPA Social Media Broadcast. All to say, Kidackie is not a dunce. It is impossible, in my estimation, for Kidackie to feign ignorance of the Act.

What did Kidackie do to end up behind bars and in cuffs? During an online broadcast of his show, an unknown caller urged someone to go on a murderous rampage and execute senior members of the PPP administration. He even outlined how and where he’d like their severed heads to be displayed.

Kidackie gave the caller a free pass. He did not interrupt nor did he mute him which he should have done after the caller uttered a threat against the President. Instead, Kidackie listened politely and patiently as you would the rant of a drunk uncle. Kidackie was unperturbed as his guest advocated a campaign of terror. The caller was not only inciting violence, it was hate speech at its worst because the four men he identified as targets were all East Indians.

When the caller was finally good and done, Kidackie “thanked him” for his call and his “contribution.” Then he said, “I don’t necessarily endorse the promotion of violence, but I do subscribe to the fact that Guyana could very well be a better place if we see the backs of some politicians.” Those are his words, verbatim.

By his own admission, it appears Kidackie recognised that his caller had crossed a red line. Because he was conducting a live broadcast, Kidackie had an obligation to mute the caller, reject his statements and report him to the authorities. Kidackie did none of the above.

The Cybercrime Act states that “A person commits an offence if the person, whether in or out of Guyana, intentionally publishes, transmits or circulates by means of a computer system, a statement or words, either spoken or written, text, video, image or sign, visible representation, or other thing, that encourages, entices, induces, aids, abets, counsels any person to commit or conspire with another person to commit any criminal offence against the President or any member of government.” In another section, a person commits an offence if the person “excites or attempts to excite ethnic divisions among the people of Guyana or hostility or ill-will against any person or class of persons on the ground of race.”

If found guilty, Kidackie is staring at five years behind bars. Be careful which page you tear from Trump’s playbook.