26 years ago, today, in 2000, I got admitted to the Bar. With Adreana De Souza at the same time.
Our petitions were kindly presented by Ralph Ramkarran SC whom at the time, I had only met a handful of times but whose son, Nikhil, we went to school with and who had kindly asked for this privilege on our behalf.
I have had cause recently to look back, as I often do on various matters, with open eyes at our status regarding the advancement of women’s rights and protection from known harm.
I can say without hesitation that we have moved so, so far from where we were.
In 2000 the Domestic Violence Act was 4 years old.
I remember a Magistrate in Court 6 asking me if I expected him to put a man out of his home for a “mere slap,” and me being dumbfounded about such a question when the law was clear as to the remedies and I had just learnt this in law school.
In retrospect, it was clear he didn’t understand the nature of domestic violence: that almost no person goes to court after the first “mere slap.”
That it had to have been a build up of many slaps and kicks and cuffs and rapes and hospital visits and break ups and make ups that ended up before him, perhaps this time as a “mere slap.”
I would come to learn that there was no race, social class, income bracket, political affiliation, even education level that was immune from perpetrating or being victims.
That this was always about prevailing inequalities amongst the genders and imbalances of power in a relationship.
The Sex Offences Act was nowhere in sight. We passed that in 2010 after a long and enlightening but extremely tiring campaign across this country known as “Stamp It Out.”
That Act was unanimously passed in the National Assembly after we deliberated in a Special Select Committee.
It revolutionized the way sex offences were to be treated and viewed by the population and enforcers alike.
Access to finances, access to secondary and tertiary education, access to training, access to home ownership, access to a place at the table, representation in Parliament have ALL improved SIGNIFICANTLY if I am to be honest.
And I a proud that in all these instances these were led by the party I have associated with, the PPP/C.
I would add quickly here though that many NGOs, individuals, religious leaders and ordinary people made these changes possible by their advocacy, active drafting and appropriate votes at various elections.
Without doubt, enormous work and effort went into getting us to this place by both men and women alike.
But there is more work to do. We cannot be convenient in our application of the laws and principles and standing we collectively fought so hard to achieve.
I suspect most countries and societies have the similar kinds of problems with removing age old beliefs and problems that derive from gender inequalities.
Cue the heavily covered Cornell matter currently in the press. In every issue or complaint there can easily be a “but…. this one is different because….”
And that is what we must avoid and resist. At every turn.
In this light I would be glad if Mr. Nigel Hughes can tell us where his client is (unfortunately because everybody seems to come with their own agendas and biases it is difficult for me to simply believe what I see on social media without more, thereby in itself underscoring the need for equal treatment of these issues even by the press).
I don’t know what the facts are between Mr Seeram and the complainant. And I don’t need to know.
A court has heard this matter, has found Mr Seeram guilty and has remanded him pending sentence.
That decision to remand was “appealed” by asking for a review of that decision.
That review was denied by a High Court Judge.
What is the usual thing that happens when someone is remanded and is that happening here? Could Mr Hughes, who himself ran for president on the AFC ticket just a short year ago, with beautiful promises about women and their rights and who himself was vocal about other accused who did not even reach the stage of conviction, tell us what would be the ordinary course here and if indeed that has been followed and if not, why not?
Mr Seeram is entitled to all the defences available to him including appeals and consequential orders an Appeal Court can make such as a stay of pending orders made etc.
Can we be advised if this is so, if orders staying that decision have been made or applied for?
I can see someone saying we are not entitled to that information but I would differ. These are public policy issues that cause shifts and changes one way or the other.
Other women are looking on. They may know their rights but they need to be equally sure that those won’t be eroded if a fancy lawyer turns up and that Courts will be fair regardless of who is before them both at the bar table and in the box. Every single time we offer a “but this one is different” we halt the progress we should be making.
And it is time we stop. Our country and her people deserve more. And want more.
This pic (feature photo) was taken on the 5th October this year by Vikanand Deokie in the Court of Chief Justice Navindra Singh as I looked at young Begum Somyah Baksh just after her admission to the Bar.
I was super proud of her and was literally thinking here how different things are now for her as a young female lawyer at the bar and for a young person in our beautiful Guyana.
