Is this the same girl in this picture? If so she was in their employ since she was 14!!!

i think the ABC COUNTRY need to get involve in this case if this girl was a minor when she was employ by this magistrate this is child labour i can see some visa getting revoke here 

Look the lady eying the gentle caress on the child's head...note she does not think it appropriate ...leaning away is not a body cue that she likes it.

source

Why is the picture above  blocked?


The case against Fatima Martin has to be dismissed

Dear Editor,

It is with the utmost outrage that I pen this letter. As a regular visitor to this country for over 34 years I am familiar with its history and the range of issues that Guyana faces, both on the world stage and at home. Over the years there have been many events that have left me feeling that there is little hope for the country and yet other events that make me feel the future will indeed be better than the past. Over the last few days the meeting held by the Support Group for Colwyn Harding is an example of the latter. But the sentencing of Fatima Martin most decidedly falls in the former camp. Indeed, it is a new low for the legal profession in Guyana.

Fatima Martin is the 19-year-old-girl from Lethem employed as a child minder by two members of the legal profession, Geeta Chandan and Joel Edmonds, who live at Atlantic Ville on the East Coast. Fatima had worked for them since November 2013 and was in charge of looking after their two children, aged one and five. She admitted to hitting the baby in the face. This, it goes without saying, is wrong.

I am a mother myself and I know how upset I would have been to discover that the person you employ to look after your child has hit them. Even in the context of the corporal punishment that is the norm in Guyana I recognize that hitting a baby is unusual.

But what followed in the face of this is so heinous as to beggar belief. Fatima’s statement indicates that shortly after this she was allegedly physically attacked by Geeta Chandan. Within an incredibly short time she was up in court – a court closed to any member of the public by the magistrate, Sueanna Lovell – and sentenced for 5 years.

The parents – Geeta and Joel – had a legal representative, Lakshmi Rahamat, whereas Fatima had none. Geeta and Joel knew their legal rights – Geeta herself is a magistrate and Joel is a lawyer – whereas Fatima was allegedly not even told what her rights were and had no legal representative. She is now in New Amsterdam prison serving her sentence.


This scenario begs a number of questions: Since when was a sentence of 5 years considered appropriate punishment for hitting a child? How were Geeta and Joel able to get this case passed through the courts in such a short time – arrested on a Wednesday and sentenced on the Friday – a matter of a few days? Why did the magistrate not allow anyone in the court apart from the accused, the parents and their lawyer? Why did the magistrate and lawyer agree to participate in this court? But the biggest questions of all are these: Why were Geeta Chandan, Joel Edmonds, Sueanna Lovell and Lakshmi Rahat prepared to abuse the very legal system they represent? Why did they feel they could get away with this egregious abuse of their professional powers?


The Guyana Bar Association and the Chancellor of the Judiciary need to address the behaviour of its members and do what is right. Access to justice cannot be determined by who one knows, how educated one is, how much money one has, or as in this case, how flagrantly one is prepared to use a system for one’s own ends. The case against Fatima Martin should have resulted in dismissal from her job, not a 5 year prison sentence. The case against Fatima Martin has to be dismissed before the reputation of Guyana’s legal profession becomes a national and international disgrace.


Yours faithfully,
Professor Linda Peake
York University
Toronto, Canada

The punishment does not fit the crime, probation at most is warranted. The afc/pnc have a lot of pull in Guyana as they can put away people for 5 years for the simplest of infractions. Meanwhile they let people like Benschop walk.

It was Bharat Jagdeo, who freed him after they could not prove their accusations.

Prof. One Luv  Speaks: