In dictatorial societies, such as Pakistan, Myanmar (Burma) and former South Africa, the courts are used to pursue political vendetta not to uphold the laws. Guyana has had its fair share of experiences. Notably is the case against Mark Benschop. He was made a political prisoner and placed in solitary confinement for almost five years on a charge of treason. His alleged treasonous act was standing in front of the Office of the President on July 3, 2020 with a bullhorn, talking to protestors.
His case was not only prolonged, but when it was finally brought to trial, the dissenting voice of one juror resulted in having to go to a retrial which prolonged confinement.
Though the charge was later dropped and Benschop released, the personal traumas inflicted on him were not only meant to break his spirit, but to be a message to society that the legal system would be used to seek political vengeance. Those Black Lives Matter protests, in the United States and around the world, using bullhorns to address fellow protestors, governments, etc. would think Guyana is in Mars and Benschop is an alien from outer space. This is how ludicrous the charge was.
Treason in Guyana is a non-bailable offence. To the extent where it is used, however frivolous, it is not only about being charged but the fact that in awaiting trial the accused is incarcerated, isolated from society and loved ones. Dictatorial governments have also sought to silence dissent, pursue revenge by instituting lesser charges, inflicting harm on the populace and corrupting institutions of state.
While it is not surprising the present government made good on its threats, during the election to jail people, there exists enough evidence to be concerned how these are being pursued and with the support of whom. The first person targeted was Keith Lowenfield, Chief Election Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission. Private criminal charges were brought against him by persons with known political connections, some of whom were represented by political operatives who made the threats.
When the change in government occurred the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) took over the private charges. Last Friday, Director Shalimar Ali-Hack withdrew the DPP from this role and is now pursuing the charges made by the police. Note must be made that those charges were filed before the change in government but the DPP took a hands-off approach.
One of the lawyers identified to prosecute the cases is on record, pre and post-election, advocating in favour of the group pursuing political recrimination. It raises the specter of the boundary between legal justice and use of the legal system to seek political revenge. The DDP is not unaware of this. To the extent her office facilitates the presence of this prosecutor suggests poor judgment.
Said DPP dropped the charges brought by the state against the Attorney General for alleged theft of law books when he held the office previously, and against the President for alleged corruption when he was Minister of Housing.
Justice must not only be done but also perceived to be done. It is dangerous when people lose confidence in the judicial system to deliver justice by ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard, their case prosecuted without fear of known political bias and ill will, and concern that in the eyes of that prosecutor the common law principle of being innocent until proven guilty may not apply.
The DPP is not about the office holder. The office carries the constitutional burden of contributing to balancing the scale of justice. Any perception there exists failure to take this responsibility with deserving seriousness runs the risk of being accused of being part of the problem (political vengeance) not the solution, which is legal justice. Only in dictatorial societies are laws and the judicial system abused to pursue political reprisals, such must not be the case in our country.
