Magistrate Ruschelle Liverpool, today, dismissed the case brought against Sheneza ‘Diane’ Jafferally in which she is accused of improper use of public telecommunications system contrary to the Telecommunications Act Chapter 47:02 to issue bomb threats against the University of Guyana (UG).
The charge alleged that on February 05, 2019, at Cummings Lodge, East Coast Demerara (ECD), Jafferally – a student of the University of Guyana – sent by means of a public telecommunication system for purpose of causing needless anxiety to the staff and students of the University of Guyana, a false message she knew to be false.
During her first court appearance, the defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. Attorney-at-Law Latchmie Rahamat represented her during the trial which commenced in October of 2019.
It was reported that on the day in question, a number of threats were sent to several online news outlets which were promptly reported to the Police.
Nevertheless, UG was on lock-down owing to the bomb scare. As a result, the gates to the tertiary institution were briefly locked but were reopened once the Police and other officials gave the green light.
In the threat message, the alleged sender ‘Jack Ryan’ stated “I have placed 20 bombs across the University of Guyana campus which are hidden from plain sight. Attached to this bomb is a timer which can be remotely activated/ deactivated”.
The sender also uploaded an image of the alleged handmade explosive devices. He also stated that the timer was set for eight hours before detonation.
“The bombs will be activated at exactly 15:00h unless my demands are met,” ‘Ryan’ continued. In a subsequent message, he related that students must leave the campus after which he would make his demands.
However, the Police had conducted a thorough investigation after no explosives were found on campus, which led to the defendant being arrested at her workplace after phone records allegedly linked her to the threats.
The Prosecution closed its case on December 02, 2020, and led about 9 witnesses into evidence while the defence made a no-case submission.
In the end, the Magistrate upheld the defence’s no-case submission.
Attorney Rahamat said that the prosecution failed to lead evidence to support the particulars of the charge to prove that her client sent any message using the telecommunication system and that she sent any message to cause public anxiety.
She added that the prosecution led no evidence to disclose the contents of the message for the Court to consider whether it caused public anxiety not did it led no evidence, as prescribe in the Telecommunications Act, to show that a public telecommunication system was used to send the message.
Offering a comment following the verdict, Jafferally said: “It has caused me great psychological trauma. I have not been able to attend school as yet. And that is not because I am not allowed to attend, but because I am so afraid because of the situation I was put in. I have been going to therapy for the past year. I don’t think another person should have to go through something like this because of negligence, because of people not investigating properly.”
