Eustace’s Perjury Rally?

Fri, Sept 28, 2012

Editor,

“For how can you compete?
Being honour bred, with one
Who, were it proved he lies,
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbours’ eyes?”

“To a friend whose work has come to nothing” – by William Butler Yeats

EG Lynch was charged with “making statement likely to cause alarm”.

In February 2008, Ralph Gonsalves was charged with rape.

Vynnette Frederick on the September 12, 2012 was charged with three counts of perjury.{{more}}

During the course of my program, Current Affair, on the night before the trial was to begin, I made a request to listeners to come down to Kingstown to give EG moral support. The request was that persons wear anything but yellow and that it was to be a silent protest. As soon as I made that request, a note was delivered to me, sent by the owner of the radio station. The note informed that the NDP did not want me to do that. I sent a note back to the owner, who in the interval had called the programme in an attempt to change the subject. I asked him if he got my note and his reply was, “Ok, I see.” I persisted. A call was then made to Mr Lynch’s lawyer to ask me to desist. I refused.

For the first few days of Mr Lynch’s trial, except for NDP rank and file, no official showed. Linton Lewis does not count, since he was the lawyer for Mr Lynch.

On March 02, 2008, a rally by the ULP was dubbed “a rape rally”. Thousands showed up.

On the day of Ms Frederick’s arrest, Arnhim Ulrick Eustace called his party’s programme no fewer than three times, telling the nation that his party was firmly behind Ms Frederick. Supporters were urged to get down town to show support and unlike the days of chief spokesman EG Lynch, when it took Eustace days before he put in an appearance, he was down by 3 p.m. In his call to the radio programme, Mr Eustace described the arrest as a distraction and claimed ignorance. Mr Eustace apparently was unaware that the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in a judgment delivered June 14, 2012, said at paragraph 26, “The judge [Justice Thom at the lower court] was influenced by evidence we now know to be untrue.”

Resign or Disappoint

But the same Eustace was on radio May 16, 2011, one month before Ms Frederick’s affidavit which the court found to have contained “evidence we know to be untrue” saying, “We met with relevant persons in the legal fraternity on several occasions, post election to make a determination…We took a decision that we will pick a particular time to file those cases and it caught quite a few people off guard. …We do it when it is a strategic advantage to do so … And we will decide, in this case, I will decide when it shall be announced.” The police may want to question some others.

Compare the cases, EG Lynch, Ralph Gonsalves and Ms Frederick. EG’s case should have been challenged all the way to the Privy Council, the relevant precedent, the Tim Hector Antigua case [The EG Rome case bore no resemblance.]

Ralph Gonsalves, in a statement to the court, admitted to giving the lady “a reassuring kiss and a pat”. A lesser charge of unwelcome sexual advances, perhaps? Once the charges were laid, the NDP called on Ralph Gonsalves, an elected member of the house to step aside until the charges were heard. The gathering at Unity Square, as before mentioned, was dubbed “a rape rally”. Should not the NDP have asked Ms Frederick to resign already? Or should she not have been disappointed already?

The Thursday [September 13, 2012] after Ms Frederick’s release, she was on radio where she listened as her father, himself an officer of the court, set out to cast wild aspersions on other officers of the court and the court itself. On Thursday night, September 20, 2012, Ms Frederick was joined by Arnhim Eustace, Daniel Cummings and an officer of the court, Dr Godwin Friday; was this to give tacit support to Ms Frederick? Was this an NDP perjurer’s rally? Would she be in attendance at the next sitting of the House? The NDP refused to sit with Gonsalves for five months until August, but Eustace borrowed his glasses in June.

Vynnette’s options

The other day, I met a gentleman whose name I do not know. He shook my hand, saying he must congratulate me for what I did. I do not think that I did anything for which I should be praised. I had no options. I did what my mother would have expected me to do. What bothers me though, is why neither Dr Gonsalves’ lawyers nor even the judge listened to the recordings. Was it because the players were lawyers? I am reminded of the Jamaican case where two young men were charged with bank robbery and murder and sentenced to death. They insisted on their innocence all the way to the Privy Council, where they were set free. On a technicality? No. The bank video recording was never shown until then. One of them was transferred to a mental institution.

While I had no options, Ms Frederick certainly had several. If the affidavit contained “inadvertently inserted” words as they claim, why not verify once they were notified and make the necessary application to the court? Why wait instead, from November 2011 to May 2012 and then swear an affidavit on May 23 saying she listened to the recording, yet repeat the line about Dr Gonsalves’ use of a word? Then another two days later, May 25, say the word was “inadvertently inserted”. Why has Ms Frederick not thrown herself at the mercy of the court instead of being arrogant, obnoxious and shameless?

By the way, for those who, despite the evidence, may see bias in their party-coloured glasses, remember the charge of rape. It was about justice for a young woman; it is about justice for Ralph Gonsalves now.

Frank E da Silva