By Kemol King
The dismissal of the blasphemous libel charge against Daniel Wharton, known as “Baby Skello”, was the correct outcome. A Magistrate has now found that the law used against him was not applicable, because it pertains specifically to offences against the Christian religion. The charge was defective and bad in law.
While it is a good thing for the charge to have been dropped, it should not matter which religion Wharton offended. He should never have been criminally charged under those circumstances in the first place. Even if you are not convicted, it is also a form of punishment to subject someone to the vilification of being charged and jailed.
None of this requires anyone to defend the content of the song itself. Wharton sang about the Hindu Goddess Lakshmi in a manner that was offensive and deserving of criticism. Public condemnation was understandable. But condemnation and criminal prosecution are not the same thing. A society must be careful about when it crosses the line from public disapproval into prosecution by the state.
Yet the broader reaction to the case by the state apparatus exposed another issue that deserves serious reflection in Guyana. And that is the perception that accountability is not applied evenly.
That perception had to do with the fact that while Wharton was charged and jailed, a more inflammatory, less apologetic agitator, Jennifer Ally was recommended for counselling by the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC). Ally had gained attention online during the emotionally charged national discourse surrounding the death of Adriana Younge. She was widely criticized for statements including about the deceased child, which were insensitive, inflammatory and divisive. Even after backlash erupted online, she had doubled down rather than retreating from the comments. A video eventually circulated online with Ally apologising for her remarks after she met with the ERC.
The comparisons which swarmed on social media about these two situations were uncomfortable. One individual produced a tasteless, offensive song and ended up arrested and jailed. Another made comments viewed by many as deeply divisive, at a time when there was a national outcry over the mysterious death of a child, yet faced no comparable legal consequence.
Now, to be fair, the ERC was keen to specify last year that it had nothing to do with Wharton’s arrest. It had said it requested that he appear before the commission as part of its constitutional function to engage, mediate, and encourage constructive resolution. The organisation said it did not refer the matter to the police, nor did it request nor influence any form of arrest or judicial action, and that any legal action was undertaken independently by the Guyana Police Force (GPF).
While this may be the case, the public tends to care less about what one state entity did or did not do, and more about how the entire state apparatus deals with issues, whether it is the ERC or the police.
Institutions cannot ignore the perception problem that cases like these create. Public trust is shaped not only by what organisations do, but by what people believe they are willing to do depending on who is involved, and which community is offended.
If the state appears overly aggressive in one instance and restrained in another, it is not unreasonable for people to deduce that there is injustice. That is dangerous territory.
The lesson here is really that criminal law is in most cases an inappropriate instrument for dealing with offensive expression. The greater challenge is ensuring that institutions respond to such expressions in ways that are measured and consistent across the board.
Guyana cannot afford a climate in which citizens believe there are different standards for different people. It foments suspicion and ethnic interpretation in the worst ways.
