The Guyana Police Force never intended to charge or have Nigel Dharamlall prosecuted.
The entire series of events which lead up to a superficial investigation was meant to thwart the course of justice. Information was circulating with claims that a senior police official made efforts to persuade the victim not to make a report. We later learnt that Dharamlall was arrested and placed on one million dollars’ bail. Since the purpose of bail is to secure the accused person’s attendance to court, this is a clear error. The error was deliberate by the Guyana Police Force to give the appearance that they actually intended to charge Dharamlall. We are later told that the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who then returned the file for further investigation.
The final update received by the public is that the victims withdrew her statement and do not wish to pursue criminal charges against Dharamlall. The entire scheme of events depicts a system only intending to frustrate the victim and cause the feeling of uneasiness and distrust. Exactly what has happened in Dharamlall’s case is among the reasons for the 2013 amendment to The Laws Of Guyana Sexual Offences Act Chapter 8:03 Act 7 of 2010 Amended by 2 of 2013.
Section 41 clearly states that 1. (1) Where an offence under this Act is reported to the police, the police shall, in every case, record the report and conduct an investigation. ‘ (2) Within three months of a complaint being made under subsection (1) – a charge shall be laid in respect of the report or the file relating to the report and investigation shall be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice. Clearly in this instance the police refused to lay any charge despite overwhelming evidence. The Act provided an alternative in the event the Police are unable to lay charges. In this instance the police utilised the latter by refusing to lay any charges and sent the file to the DPP where such action was never mandatory but merely optional.
Furthermore, if the police had done their job to charge Dharamlall based on the evidence presented to them, then Dharamlall could have been committed to stand trial by way of a paper committal. See section 43 of the statute which reads: “Where a person is charged with an offence under committals’ this Act, there shall be no oral preliminary inquiry and instead a paper committal shall be held in accordance with”. The criminal judicial system needs immediate changes since the police department is deliberate and complacent in following the rule of law and uses the DPP as a secondary means to perpetrate corrupt practices.
The police had sufficient evidence to lay charges in the first instance. Information circulating in the public domain suggests that there’s both direct and circumstantial evidence which may very well amount to beyond a reasonable doubt. If any charge was laid, then this matter would have rested in the magistrate’s power to review and make a sound determination as to whether a paper committal was required. However, the police took no chances in allowing an independent magistrate with no ulterior motive to review the file and make a determination regarding the fate of Dharamlall.
We are dealing with a shady DPP, a corrupt system which gives too much power to one person. It is a very dangerous place to be when the laying criminal charges reset entirely in the hands of one person whose loyalty is not to protest the interest of all of the Guyanese people from criminal conduct. The Police department needs to be forced to do their job independent of the DPP. The Police department has trained prosecutors who know the rules of evidence. Surely, they were capable of making a determination based on the evidence and findings from their own investigation. If they are incapable then, what kind of message are they sending to the public regarding their competency and knowledge of the very laws they are attempting to enforce?
