Attorney-at-law Peter Hugh
The young man who accused House Speaker Raphael Trotman of sexual molestation has secured the services of a lawyer following advice by Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang. Today attorney-at-law Peter Hugh who has been retained by Johnny Welshman, issued a statement in which he condemned the attacks against his client by supporters of the Alliance For Change (AFC) and associates of Trotman.
Hugh also questioned what he viewed as Trotman’s prevention of his client from speaking out on the matter by way of an injunction and the lopsided coverage being given by sections of the media. The Lawyer also spoke of Welshman’s inability to secure legal representation after other lawyers were threatened.
He revealed that his client was offered a large sum in monetary compensation to say that the allegations were fabricated by the PPP. This claim was first made by the Alliance For Change which also recently came under fire for alleging that 3 APNU MPs were offered $30M to vote against its impending no-confidence motion. Both the PPP and APNU denied the allegation with APNU leader David Granger charging that it was a fabrication.
Here's the full statement below:
The local press and various social media have for the past two weeks covered allegations that were made by Mr. Johnny Welshman against Mr. Raphael Trotman as well as the denials by Mr. Trotman.
Mr. Trotman caused an action “Raphael Trotman v. Johnny Anthony Weshlman” 2014-HC-DEM-CIV-W 396 to be filed on the 22nd day of September 2014 in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature by Mr. Nigel Hughes. An Interim Injunction was granted restraining the Defendant (Mr. Johnny Welshman) whether by himself, his servants or agents from publishing or attempting to publish whether in print or any electronic media any material relating and or pertaining to allegations of sexual assault by the Mr. Raphael Trotman on Mr. Johnny Welshman.
It was further ordered by the Court that the Defendant remove from the Plaintiff’s Facebook page all material and publications relating and or referring to the Plaintiff in relation to the issue of sexual assault.
Mr. Johnny Welshman contacted me and explained his difficulty in retaining counsel who is willing to offer him legal representation and apply on his behalf to the Court to have the Interim Injunction which was granted on the 22nd September, 2014 discharged.
Mr. Welshman also informed me that a young lawyer, who he had initially started communications with told him that she received threats from known and unknown individuals and she could not be involved in his matter and that she was no longer in a position to offer him her legal services as she was afraid.
I assured Mr. Johnny Welshman I would represent him and quite frankly am disgusted by the manner in which some persons in the social media attacked Mr. Johnny Welshman who may be a victim of sexual violence.
I am of the firm belief that no victim of any alleged sexual violence should be intimidated, threatened, vilified, degraded or humiliated in an effort to silence them.
I also believe that that Counsel must be able to accept any brief and practice law fearlessly without there being threats and/or intimidation.
The alleged allegations made by Mr. Johnny Welshman against Mr. Raphael Trotman were of a sexual nature which allegedly occurred when Johnny Welshman was a child. A child is considered a vulnerable victim and is afforded protection by our laws and our Justice System.
Sexual violence is often a traumatic and damaging experience no civilized society ought to allow a complainant to be degraded by public chastisement, embarrassment or humiliation in their quest for justice.
The public chastisement, embarrassment or humiliation of a complainant by the alleged perpetrators, their servants, agents, supporters, sympathizers or anyone in my humble opinion is an attempt to tamper with a witness and in some cases may amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
There seems to be tactical accusations of grand conspiracy theories implicating Mr. Johnny Welshman in a plot by a political group to bring into disrepute the character and reputation of Mr. Raphael Trotman by publishing accusations in the print media and on a social network.
Mr. Raphael Trotman sued Mr. Welshman alone for damages in excess of 50 million Guyana dollars for defamation when he would have a cause of action (the right to sue) 3 national newspapers who would have printed and communicated the purported defamatory statements.
In the very articles published by the 3 national newspapers Mr. Trotman is quoted extensively as denying the allegations leveled against him. These articles carried by the 3 national newspapers are also available on the internet and can be easily accessed by anyone. Mr. Trotman never sought to have these articles removed from the online sites of these papers.
Mr. Raphael Trotman after obtaining an Interim Injunction restraining Mr. Johnny Welshman whether by himself, his servants or agents from publishing or attempting to publish whether in print or any electronic media any material relating and or pertaining to allegations of sexual assault by the Mr. Raphael Trotman on Mr. Johnny Welshman since the 22nd say of September, 2014, continues to speak to the press and cause to be published both in print and electronically articles which clearly seek to directly attack the reputation, character and integrity of Mr. Johnny Welshman. The allegations made by Mr. Johnny Welshman are the subject of a police investigation.
In my humble opinion this is unacceptable behavior by Mr. Trotman who is in the print and electronic media continually attacking the reporter of an alleged sexual assault especially as Mr. Johnny Welshman is now restrained from publishing in print or electronically any material in relation to those allegations. This seems to me to be attacking someone who can not respond, reply or defend himself.
Appalling is the deafening silence from the usual Non-Governmental Organizations and groups who claim to represent and champion human rights generally and more particularly the rights of the victims of domestic, transgender and sexual violence. These NGO’s and groups rush to the aid and offer counselling to victims even more so when the victim is a child, indigenous person or part of a another vulnerable group.
I am greatly displeased with what appears to be convenient and bandwagon activism. Is it that these NGO’s and groups are fearful of challenging influential people in our society who seem to behaving in a manner contrary to what these NGO’s and groups claim to stand for? Is it that these NGO’s and groups reserve their activism for victims whose alleged attacker is not affiliated with particular political parties or who do not hold prominent offices or positions in society? I am saddened.
Mr. Raphael Trotman claims that Mr. Johnny Welshman is mentally unstable and is only making wicked assertions, yet he would recommend a mentally unstable young man for a job with not one but with two reputable businesses operating in Georgetown.
It could reasonably be inferred that up until a report of the allegations was made to the Guyana Police Force, Mr. Raphael Trotman did not hold the view that Mr. Johnny Welshman was mentally unstable.
If Mr. Raphael Trotman initially thought that Mr. Johnny Welshman’s allegations were a political plot by a political party then why didn’t he come out immediately upon hearing of the allegations and expose this plot? Why was a public statement only made by Mr. Raphael Trotman and his supporters after the matter was reported to the Guyana Police Force? Why is there so much effort to connect Mr. Johnny Welshman to a political party in dealing with the allegations he made? For the record, my client is not affiliated with any political party and I believe the assertions and claims that Mr. Johnny Welshman is politically motivated are meant solely as a distraction from the very serious allegations made by Mr. Welshman.
The fact that these assertions of political motivation by Mr. Raphael Trotman are being made before the Police investigation is completed, can only be viewed as an attempt to intimidate Mr. Johnny Welshman and discredit him as having some motive for reporting the matter to the Police.
In fact since the granting of the Interim Injunction Mr. Raphael Trotman has gone on the offensive in the media and has been openly attacking and attempting to discredit Mr. Johnny Welshman.
Several individuals posting in the social media who may or may not be affiliated to Mr. Trotman and/or the Alliance for Change (AFC) have been attacking Mr. Welshman and publishing scandalous, degrading and offensive material which could be libelous in its own right. Why is the victim of an alleged sexual assault being treated in this manner?
Why would Mr. Raphael Trotman entertain and engage in talks of settlement and offer Mr. Welshman a sum of money if he honestly believed that Mr. Johnny Welshman was a mentally unstable young man, making wicked accusations and being used as a pawn in a plot by a political party.
I believe that any other victim of an alleged sexual assault would be offered protection pending the outcome of the criminal investigations. Mr. Johnny Welshman is entitled to the same protection other victims are afforded. Is he being denied the protection of his rights and afforded protection simply because of who he alleges his attacker is?
I am informed by my client that despite the filing of the libel suit and a matter being investigated by the Guyana Police Force Mr. Johnny Weshman has been approached with offers of settlement in the sum of three (3) million Guyana Dollars on the condition that he makes a public statement that the PPP/C asked him to make these allegations. When he refused to accept any settlement or to lie and say that the PPP/C asked him to do anything, his life was threatened.
The most recent threat upon his life has been reported to the police. These threats upon Mr. Welshman’s life could well be constituted as attempting to pervert the course of justice and I trust that the police will investigate these threats to my client’s life and unearth the individual or individuals responsible.
Justice must never be premised or appear to be premised on who is the alleged perpetrator of an offence regardless of their station, position, office or affiliations. Every citizen must be equal before the law. All alleged victims of domestic, transgender and sexual violence must be afforded equal access to justice and equal protection of the law regardless of their socio economic, racial or gender differences.
Peter Hugh
Attorney-at-Law
7th October 2014.
extracted from http://www.newguymedia.com
