Following the murder of Raheem Abdool, a resident of the Guyana United Sad’r Islamic Anjuman Orphanage, Minister of Human Services Bibi Shadick ordered an investigation into the operations of the institution. The probe revealed instances of child abuse and child labour, although the management of the orphanage was quick to deny these. However, in our edition of March 4, we carried a report on allegations of abuse levelled by two children who had once lived at the orphanage, and which implicated the housemother, other persons on the staff, two former residents and some of the older boys.
The two boys concerned, Abass Mohammed, 12, and Intiaz Ali Mohammed, 9, showed a reporter from this newspaper their scars, which they said were the result of the beatings they had received. Abass talked of barbed wire, a drop cord, a cutlass, bed boards and other pieces of wood being used to beat the children, himself included. The older boy, whose back and head carried ample evidence of maltreatment, described punishment sessions during which he was tied to a bench, and left there until the following day. Another, he said, involved tying his hands and feet, and in a kneeling position, being made to support a bench in the air with his bound hands.
Abass’ younger brother related how they were sometimes beaten to do chores at the orphanage, or again, if they didn’t learn the required verses from the Q’uran properly. There were times, he told our reporter, when the boys would be made to stand in line, and in sequence be forced to place their fingers on a bench which one of the older boys would then strike with a piece of wood. On other occasions they would be lined up for a beating because they had dirtied their school clothes, as a consequence of which they were sometimes afraid to return to the orphanage after school.
It was not as if, the children said, that the victims of this punishment did not scream. Intiaz related how passers-by would enquire on hearing the screams, why the children were being beaten. On one occasion, he told us, a passing policewoman heard screaming, and rushed into the building telling the adults that the boys were not to be beaten. In addition, they alleged that there were instances when they were left without anything to eat for days, receiving food when benefactors turned up.
The housemother has vigorously denied the allegations made by the brothers - “I can’t understand how these children come about saying these things like this...” Among other things, she said that none of the boys had ever complained about being beaten, and in reference to the boys’ mother, who removed them from the institution five years ago, she remarked that which mother would remove their children from an institution with so much violence and wait until now to complain. (It might be observed in passing that the explanation is not far to seek: the climate has become less inimical to revelations since Raheem Abdool was murdered.)
What the Minister has now announced is the establishment of visiting committees for children’s homes to monitor their activities, and ensure that adequate care is provided. Mrs Shadick told this newspaper that the teams would comprise three or four persons, who would visit orphanages once a month or once every two weeks.
The Minister is perfectly in order to review the management of the homes which care for children in this country. However, given the scarce human resources she has at her disposal, she needs to operate with priorities, and not dissipate manpower on institutions which hardly need monitoring. While a preliminary inspection of them all should no doubt be undertaken, it would be with a view to identifying those, if any, which have problems, so something could be done about them. These would be the ones which would then require regular monitoring of the kind which the Minister has outlined. However, she should leave the well-run ones alone to function as they have always done without undue bureaucratic interference, save being subject, perhaps, to an annual visit to ensure that their status has not changed.
At this particular point in time, the Minister’s main priority should still be the Guyana United Sad’r Islamic Anjuman Orphanage in Kitty. While the allegations against the housemother and others associated with the institution are as yet unproven, ideally the management of the home should be removed ad interim since risks should not be taken with children’s safety. One might have thought that the Minister had prima facie grounds on the basis of the Raheem Abdool case alone to take that course of action, grounds which were strengthened by what she herself found out, and which have now been further fortified by the frightening accounts from the Mohammed brothers.
However, the Minister told this newspaper that she had been informed that imposing a management committee to run the orphanage would run counter to the constitution of the Anjuman, and that any committee would have to be installed by that body, and not the ministry. If it is indeed the case that she has no powers of removal or instatement in this instance, then both ministerial and public pressure need to be brought to bear on the Anjuman to take action. As far as the public can discern, that organization has evinced no particular enthusiasm for pursuing vigorous investigations of its own into the management of the institution which carries its name. It is true that the new Executive Director, Ms Raheema Rahaman, indicated that she was willing to look into the “ugly complaints” from the Mohammeds; however, she made clear that she could not imagine that the boys had been beaten in the way they described.
Well, perhaps she had better start wrapping her imagination around the possibility. Before the Raheem Abdool case, she probably couldn’t have imagined that an acting Chief Executive Officer of the Orphanage would, in company with another, be charged with the murder of one of the boys, either. Has it not occurred to her that after an event like that, the whole context in which it transpired cried out for a thorough probe from the Anjuman itself? As it was, it was an investigation mounted by the Minister which uncovered evidence of abuse. Can Ms Rahaman’s imagination not encompass that evidence either?
The Sad’r boys’ orphanage is not a private fiefdom; it is a public trust. No matter that it exists largely on charitable donations, the children within its walls are entitled to quality care, and as much love and attention as can be managed in an institutional setting. If there is any suggestion that these standards are not being met - and in this case, there is more than a suggestion - then the Anjuman should move with dispatch to rectify the situation.