The ruling delivered yesterday in the matter involving entertainer Baby Skello and his offensive lyrics directed against a Hindu deity raises profound legal, moral, and national concerns for all religious communities in Guyana.
Magistrate Wanda Fortune dismissed the charges on the ground that the existing legislation governing blasphemous libel applies specifically to Christianity and, therefore, cannot legally support charges of insulting Hindu religious symbols. Although the Magistrate relied on the wording of an archaic statute, the implications of this ruling are deeply troubling in a modern, multi-religious, and multicultural society such as Guyana.
This decision reveals a dangerous legal contradiction in our justice system: Christian symbols may receive statutory protection, while the sacred figures, beliefs, and symbols of other recognised religions remain vulnerable to ridicule, desecration, and public abuse without legal consequence.
Such an outcome cannot be considered just, equitable, or consistent with the constitutional spirit of equality that underpins our democratic society.
As a Muslim, I view this ruling with grave concern – not merely because of its immediate implications for the Hindu community, but because it could place every non-Christian faith tradition in Guyana outside the protective scope of the law. If the interpretation advanced in this case is accepted without challenge, it would effectively create a hierarchy of religious protection under the law.
The issue before the nation is therefore larger than any single entertainer, song, or religious community. It concerns whether Guyana’s laws will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with fairness, inclusivity, and equal respect for all faith traditions.
One must also ask an uncomfortable but necessary question: Would the outcome have been the same if the alleged blasphemy had been directed at Christianity, Christian symbols, or central Christian figures? Many citizens may reasonably conclude otherwise.
The silence from major national Hindu and Muslim organisations after this ruling is equally concerning. At a moment requiring principled, united moral leadership, the lack of strong public engagement risks signalling either resignation or acceptance of a flawed legal interpretation that marginalises non-Christian religions.
This ruling should therefore be challenged.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) ought to seriously consider filing an appeal to ensure that higher judicial scrutiny can clarify whether the legislation should continue to be interpreted in such a narrow and exclusionary manner.
At the same time, Hindu and Muslim organisations, along with broader civil society groups, should advocate for urgent legislative reform. The law must be repealed or amended to ensure that all religions recognised in Guyana are afforded equal dignity and protection under the law.
Guyana’s religious diversity is one of its greatest strengths. Laws inherited from the colonial era should not undermine national harmony by privileging one faith tradition over others.
It is also expected that this matter will attract the attention of the honourable Attorney General, whose pronouncement on the broader constitutional and legal implications of this ruling is eagerly awaited.
Ultimately, justice must not merely follow the letter of outdated laws; it must also reflect the principles of fairness, equality, and social cohesion on which modern Guyana is built.
The old saying that “the law is an ass” becomes most dangerous when rigid interpretation produces outcomes that offend common justice and erode public confidence in equality before the law.