On March 18, 2021 Karen Cross is alleged to have written a letter to the executive of the People’s National Party (PNP) detailing and outlining allegations against PNP General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell. Thereafter, Cross was written to by the legal team representing Campbell requesting her to cease and desist from making defamatory comments on social media. The matter was then subsequently filed in the Supreme Court and an injunction requested and granted.

The PNP is reported to have referred the matter to the police after the allegations were made. The police, on Sunday, April 18, 2021, concluded their investigation and found no basis to the allegations that were made. The police reported that, “She provided no evidence to substantiate the claims that she made, nor was she able to provide any person interested in making a complaint against Dr Campbell.”

After Dr Campbell’s court action Cross had 42 days to file a defence. In her defence she submitted three letters, dated March 1, 12 and 18, respectively. In her reports she outlined the details of the alleged sexual abuse. All the reports filed in her defence are dated prior to the conclusion of the report by the police on April 18, 2021. This, therefore, highlights that Cross would have failed to share this information with the police at the time of the investigation and would’ve subsequently withheld information that would’ve aided police in its investigation if the allegations are, in fact, truthful.

The reports, which have been purported to have been signed by past victims, I believe, bring with them inaccuracies. In one report, an alleged victim claims that she was sexually involved with Campbell, the last time being the week before the 2016 General Election. At the time, the alleged victim posits that she was 15 years old. However, in March 2021, some five years after the last incident was alleged to have happened, that victim is 18 years old. I am no mathematician, but that does not add up! The court must be made to adjudicate this matter.

Additionally, the letters submitted by Cross are redacted and as such the names and contact details of the alleged victims have been crossed out upon submission. This allows Cross to continue her campaign against Campbell despite the injunction and using the courts as a vehicle to do so. It is on this basis that I agree with Emily Shields that Campbell should not vacate his office as general secretary of the PNP on the merit of a redacted statement that has come several weeks after the police has concluded investigations. It cannot be enough for an individual to submit redacted reports and immediately the person accused must vacate office. We must consider the life of the person being accused and the implications that these allegations will and can have on them.

In the case of Cross, who has countless times aired her disgust for the new management of the PNP, and has a seeming agenda of removing such leadership, is motive enough for her actions heretofore.

We must take a stand against all forms of violence and harmful acts meted out towards any gender. We must stand up for what is right and just, no matter an individual’s class, creed, and in this case gender.

Individuals such as Trevor Munroe, Krystal Tomlinson, Imani Duncan-Price, Floyd Morris et al should reconsider their calls for Campbell to vacate office on the merit of redacted statements from a woman whose purpose seems to be the demise of the new leadership of the PNP and not only the acquisition of justice for the alleged victims, as was noted in her statement when she said in an interview, “Him need to resign!”

The matter has been referred to the police and Campbell has expressed he will make himself fully available to the police during their investigation. We must allow for the natural course of justice to take place.

roweli24@yahoo.com