–human rights body says Benn wanted “very limited engagement” with the EAAF
The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), in scathing press release, has accused Minister of Home Affairs, Robeson Benn of taking on a posture of “limited engagement” with forensic expert Dr. Luis Fondebrider while pretending to be receptive to his offer to help in the West Coast Berbice (WCB) investigation.
In fact, the GHRA has stated that, from the very beginning, Benn’s communication with Dr. Fondebrider insinuated that little assistance would be provided to him and that though the Police Force was initially willing to receive the expert’s help, the Home Affairs Ministry would have none of it.
Over the past few days, two sides of how a December 15, 2020 meeting went down between the parties in question have been presented to the media. In a Letter-to-the-Editor, the world-renowned expert said that, though the media reported such, at no time did he receive an offer to view the video autopsy of the murdered teens, Joel and Isaiah Henry and Haresh Singh.
However, the Home Affairs Ministry and the GPF subsequently counter claimed that the offer to view the video was made to Dr. Fondebrider. They also stated that he was offered to meet with Government Pathologist, Dr. Nehaul Singh but the doctor was travelling to Lethem the very day the expert was expected to leave the country so this was not possible.
In a press released on Thursday, the GHRA said that the Home Affairs Minister, despite what the media has been told, was not genuinely willing to assist Dr. Fondebrider and made clear his biases on the first and only occasion they met.
“In his opening remarks to the meeting with Dr. Fondebrider the Minister stated he wanted a ‘very limited engagement’ with the Argentine organization. This confirmed an attitude that was evident from the first attempts by the GHRA to set up the meeting, which eventually occurred only because of the intervention of others after numerous letters and phone calls from GHRA had gone unanswered. This attitude carried over into the Minister’s opening statement to the meeting in which he castigated the GHRA for ‘contaminating’ what he characterized as a purely criminal event by injecting political and ethnic elements into the case. He also maligned the family lawyer Nigel Hughes – not present at the meeting – as having a history of contaminating criminal evidence. He ended by recounting his personal experience of being jostled by a hostile crowd when he and the Prime Minister attempted to visit the crime scene,” the GHRA stated.
The Association noted its observation that initially the Police Force had welcomed the assistance of Dr. Fondebrider but no sooner than this was done, their posture changed. The GHRA believes that this is as a result of the control the Ministry has over the Force.
At the meeting, the Association stated, Benn opted for “an exchange of experiences” rather than the provision of some 20 documents, Dr. Fondebrider had verbally and formally requested of the Crime Chief so that he would get a better understanding of the case and how the larger Argentine Team of Forensic Anthropology (EAAF) could assist.
The GHRA posited: “Progress in this case is being stifled by the obligation to screen all decisions through political filters. The most persuasive explanation of the posturing is the excessive subordination of the Guyana Police Force to the Ministry of Home Affairs. This is nothing new. Interference with professional decision-making within the GPF has become routine. The GPF were initially enthusiastic over the possible support the EAAF could provide. They issued a joint press release to this effect with the GHRA. But as the visit moved from possible to likely, to fruition, we believe that fear of ‘the Ministry’ had a chilling effect on collaboration. Moreover, the Minister’s personal experience during his visit to West Coast Berbice (WCB) appears to have distorted what ought to have been more an objective political approach.”
What is equally concerning to the GHRA, is the offer to see the video autopsy was made only in passing – not to Dr. Fondebrider or the EAAF – but to the meeting. Furthermore, the Association claimed that no remarks about the Government Pathologist in the meeting as claimed by Ministry and GPF.
“If the offer of the autopsy report was genuine why was none of the communication followed up by the Ministry or the GPF? Why was Dr. Fondebrider unable to meet the Crime Chief or his officers, or the pathologist Dr. Nehaul Singh? Again, numerous but futile attempts (phone calls, letters and visits) had been made by the GHRA prior to his arrival,” the GHRA stated.
“Across Latin America all reports pertinent to crimes such as those requested by the EAAF are available to a family’s lawyer. Like most Commonwealth countries, Guyana’s legal system is remiss on this matter. The lack of such legal requirements erodes respect for victims’ families, as witnessed by the on-going police harassment of the Henry family for failing to produce a paper rather than an electronic version of a driver’s license.”
The GHRA said that, initially, it had refrained from commenting on the matter, but the insistence of the Ministry that an offer was made to Dr. Fondebrider of a video of the autopsy is misconstrued, and the Association saw it necessary to provide clarity.
