Is Douglas Defreitas guilty or not guilty?

Ralph Gonsalves has spent all of his adult life trying to hold St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) and Vincentians, SVG’s citizens hostage. His plans matured in the year 2000, when he appealed to the greed, the lust for power and the overwhelming desire for personal elevation of many trade unionists who chose to satisfy their personal greed at the expense and over the welfare of their members and the welfare of an entire nation. 

These so-called leaders abused the influence of their union office to aid Ralph Gonsalves in holding an entire nation and its people hostage. Like the devil himself, he refused to accept the fact that the people had no confidence in his ability to lead a nation and rightfully so. They had rejected him at the polls in more than four general elections, which he contested as political leader without ever winning a seat. As a matter of fact, each time he contested a general election before 2000, when he took the nation and its people hostage, he lost his deposit. 

So engulfed in demonic hate he was that he vow to make the country ungovernable and he led the people who were blinded by his devilish deception into accomplishing his acts of the Road Block Revolution that is today, still the greatest act of national hate SVG has ever seen. 

Then several years after he deceived the people into entrusting him with the reins of leadership of St Vincent and the Grenadines, he attempted to take the nation hostage again. This time, he attempted to do so, with a cunning demonic grin on his face, as he tried to manipulate the nation into entrusting him with the task of revising the nation’s constitution. 

Ralph Gonsalves, with a well-planned masterstroke, had some distinguished help. His only intention was to entice the people into hand over their soul and their country to him by adopting a new constitution. This dirty constitution would have given him technical rights to change the laws to suit his unending reign as political leader of St Vincent and the Grenadines without any opposition. As well as giving him the authority, to hand down the leadership of the country to anyone he so choose. 

This time around his masterstroke turned into a silly joke, because the people saw through his nasty intent and rejected him and his dirty constitution. 

One reason why the power hungry dirty intent of Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves was not manifested into the permanent hijacking the country was because of Nice Radio; the political mouthpiece of the opposition. It was through this medium that the Vincentian masses were shown the dirty intent of Ralph Gonsalves, who was using the office of prime minister to get away with all sorts of nasty behaviour and acts and the theft of an entire nation, via legal deception, would have been the biggest travesty in the history of the Caribbean. 

As a result of being an obstacle in Ralph Gonsalves’ effort to kidnap the country, Nice Radio was sued for some unrelated trivial matter by Ralph Gonsalves and he was awarded a hefty monetary judgment by the court. It was Gonsalves’ hope that the award from the court, would have brought Nice Radio to its knees, thus giving him the freedom to manipulate the masses when and as he pleases, with his lies and deception and ultimately taking control of their will, their thoughts and their ability to think objectively using the rule of fear to control and manipulate the people. 

But this was not to be, his masterstroke turned into another silly joke. This was so because Nice Radio is still going. Thanks to the people within the diaspora who chipped in with their pennies, nickels and dimes. 

Then Gonsalves came up with his Cyber Crime Bill and, like the dirty constitution, that bill had within it an infamous clause that is designed to criminalize honest people who speak the truth, who stand up for their rights and justice, or perform any valiant act of whistle blowing etc. Unfortunately this bill should not have been allowed to become law, but with a lack of public participation and public protest that dirty cyber-crime bill is now law. But who is going to enforce this law? 

Ralph E. Gonsalves saw Nice Radio as the only obstacle between, him and his plans plan of ultimate governance of St Vincent and the Grenadines. So the day after the 2015 General election, Douglas Defreitas was arrested and charged for offences that was allegedly committed for uttering words on his radio station. Ralph Gonsalves government held Mr Defreitas’ words to be such which have caused a public alarm. 

But were they? If one examines Mr Defretias’ words in the context in which they were spoken via Nice Radio anyone, especially a legal mind, will conclude that the words do not constitute an offence. But such words must be taken in the context in which they were used. 

I was fortunate to have been tuned into Nice Radio on the evening of December 9, 2015, when the words were uttered. However, in order for such words to constitute the crime, as he was charged, they must first meet the under mentioned standards. 

1. The words must be maliciously uttered. 
2. The must be uttered to bring about an unlawful end. 
3. The words must have been acted upon.
4. There must have been people who were negatively affected by the end results of such utterance.

Unfortunately for the government’s case, the words that were spoken by Douglas Defreitas do not constitute a crime. Because of the following 

1. One, the words were not maliciously uttered – It was Mr Deferitas’ suspicion that the conditions were perfect for the commission of a crime against the St Vincent and the Grenadines electoral law; and in his foresight, he asked for mutual parties to go to the police station and volunteer their time to ensure that the integrity of the ballot boxes were maintained. 

2. The words must be uttered to bring about an unlawful end – The words were uttered to prevent a breach of the peace or the commission of a crime by the people who are now before the high court accused of doing just that: Committing a crime against the electoral laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines

3. The words must have been acted upon – this point is not important in this scenario because there was no crime committed because of Douglas Defreitas’ utterance.

4. There must have been people who were affected by the end results of such utterance – It is not enough for the state prosecutors to present an allegation to the court to support this offence, the government prosecutors must produce actual people who were affected and in their testimony they must say how they were affected, and conclusive evidence must be presented to show that their distress, etc. was actually caused by the words Douglas Deferitas uttered. 

Given the situation and the context in which those words were used, the words were used in order to prevent the commission of a crime against the electoral laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines. Mr Defreitas had a suspicion that a crime could be or may be committed, to sway the election in the favour of the unpopular ULP, and in order to prevent the commission of such a crime, he called for neutral party to go to the Barrouallie Police Station, where the ballot boxes were, “to secure/preserve the integrity of the ballot boxes”, which was a reasonable request at the time and, in hindsight, it is still a reasonable request. 

When a reasonable person takes into consideration the political climate of the land at that time, and the fact there is a matter before the high court accusing some of the same people for electoral fraud, one will have to conclude that Mr Defreitas’ request was a reasonable one. 

Mr Douglas Defreitas did not call for people to break the law, he did not call for the people to riot, neither did he call for the people to bum-rush the Barroullie Police Station and to take the ballot boxes; but to go to the said station to preserve the integrity of the ballot boxes. Hence the reason two independent thinking professionals, in the person of Magistrate Bertie Pompey, a dignified honest man who I have known personally for many years, and young Magistrate Browne have recused themselves from hearing the matter. 

It is no secret that the government does not have a case against Mr Douglas Defreitas, hence the reason why government lawyer Anthony Astaphan could be heard on radio giving informal legal advice to Mr Defreitas and his legal team. Here is what he said:

1. Mr Defreitas’ lawyer should go to the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Colin Williams’ office and ask him to drop the matter.

2. Go to the high court and have the judge issue a mandamus ordering the magistrate to hear the case. 

I will advise Douglas Defreitas to let his case run its natural course for the following reasons. Ralph Gonsalves wants company to justify the DPP Colin Williams’ actions on his behalf, as it relates to DPP Williams throwing out of the criminal court the private criminal cases that was brought against Ralph E. Gonsalves, the sitting prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, by the female police officer who accused him of rape and sexual assault, and by the Canadian human rights lawyer Ms Margaret Parsons, who resides in Canada, who also accused Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of sexually assaulting her in his office, while he was prime minister.

Mr Douglas Defreitas’ lawyer has to ensure that Mr Defreitas testifies in his evidence-in-chief the following: 

1. His reason for summoning the people was not to commit a crime but to prevent a crime from being committed.

2. Valid reasons why he believed a crime would have been committed.

3. Name and accuse at least two police officers who work at the Barroullie Police Station who are known supporters of the ULP and publicize their political affiliation to the court. It does not matter if they were working at the time, the fact that the possibility exist that they could be on duty at the station along with the ULP handpicked returning officers and other officials at the polling station poses a threat to the electoral law.

4. Ben Exeter needs to give evidence in this case also, and Mr Exeter will tell the court of the photograph he took on December 9, 2015, in his capacity as a candidate in the general election, of the ballots and upon closer and comparative examination the photograph of some of the ballots used turned out to be fraudulent ballots. 

Ben Exeter’s testimony will show that Mr Defreitas’ suspicion was not groundless and the possibility existed that the ballot boxes would have been tampered with or may have been tampered with to accomplished the following objectives. 

1. To change the outcome of the recount of the said ballots that was to take place the following day.

2. To remove any fraudulent ballots that may be discovered in the recounting of the ballots. In order for this to be done, they would commit a crime to cover up the acts of fraud which were discovered by Ben Exeter.