Dear Editor,
Nigel Dharamlall has invoked his right to be silent so as not to incriminate himself in the pending investigation of rape. This is his right, guaranteed under the Constitution. It is also Dharamlall’s right as a defendant in criminal proceedings to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a Court of Law.
But the criminal court does not find a defendant innocent; the criminal court simply finds that there has been insufficient evidence presented to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is also part of the constitutional safeguard provided to a defendant.
However, outside of the criminal court, no such right of silence, or right to be presumed innocent, extends to Dharamlall the Minister of Government and Member of Parliament. The holder of such a high office is sworn to uphold the law and to act in the interest of Guyanese, and must be answerable to the people for his conduct. I contend that Dharamlall the Minister has a duty to answer the following questions, none of which convicts for rape, but each of which in my view speaks to his suitability to hold high office or any office in our country:
1. Did Dharamlall ever correspond with the child privately via telephone?
2. Was the child ever with Dharamlall at a residence or hotel in Campbellville or anywhere else in Georgetown?
3. Did Dharamlall ever give money to the child?
4. Did Dharamlall ever give money to the parents of the child?
5. Did Dharamlall procure the involvement of Region 2 Commander Khemraj Shivbaran to take a statement from the child?
If he refuses to answer these questions, how can the Government continue to protect him, even if he is not proved guilty in a Court of Law?
Yours sincerely,
Timothy Jonas
General Secretary
A New and United Guyana
