The Rio Claro man who posted a Facebook message which threatened harm to Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s family has apologised for his statements.
However, Rayad Mohammed may yet face legal sanction as the T&T Police Service is investigating the post while Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi says he may be in breach of the law under the Cybercrime Bill.
In a post on Facebook yesterday, Mohammed wrote: “Someone should find ROWLEY daughter and wife and slit their throats n rape them.” It was an apparent post in response to the gruesome double murder of Hafeeza Rose Mohammed, 56, and Videsh Subar, 13, in Malabar on Wednesday. (See other story)
The post was widely circulated on social media and drew scathing criticism from several people, with some labelling it racist. Hours later, Mohammed deleted the post and his account.
However, when the T&T Guardian tracked him down last evening, Mohammed, via a Whatsapp message response, humbly apologised for his words.
Trying to explain his reasoning behind the now-controversial post, Mohammed wrote: “I was n still am really pissed about the murders of the little boy n his care taker. What I meant with that post was that only when someone who is of rank or their family gets that then maybe they will do something about crime.”
Asked his response to those who criticised him, he wrote, “My intention is what I told you before.
“Hardly anyone acted like that for the murders, but a status I post n everyone thinks bad, why, because is the PM?”
Asked if he had any suggestions on how crime should be dealt with, he wrote, “Show the public that they are serious about it rather than just saying they do.”
He later elaborated on his apology, saying, “I am sorry for the way it was said but I didn’t mean it in that way n I humbly apologise for it and the way it was taken.”
Contacted yesterday, however, the AG said he was aware of the post and noted such posts constitute a criminal offense under the Cybercrime Act (see box). However, Al-Rawi refused to comment further on the issue.
Efforts to reach Acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams by phone were unsuccessful.
However, a senior police officer who wished not to be identified confirmed they had already launched an investigation into the post and its author.
“It was sent to us and we are investigating. We have the name and photos of the individual, as well as where he can be found. Unfortunately, not any more can be said on the matter until our investigations are completed,” the officer said.
In August 2011, under the stewardship of then prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, a 14-year-old girl shot into the spotlight when a video she made threatening Persad-Bissessar went viral.
The girl, referring to herself as “Granny Quila,” posted the video on Facebook and YouTube, hurling death threats, obscene, offensive, vulgar and racial remarks at Persad-Bissessar over the declaration of a state of emergency and curfew restrictions in certain communities.
At that time, then Commissioner of Police Dwayne Gibbs publicly stated the incident would be investigated.
However, Persad-Bissessar met with the child days later after the child posted an apology video on her social media accounts and said she (Persad-Bissessar) had forgiven her for her actions.
Reminded of that incident yesterday, Mohammed replied, “Serious. Oh.”
Asked to respond to the possibility he might be charged for his statements, he wrote, “My cousin was murdered in 2011 n no one charged and all that lead to my status. I honestly didn’t mean anything by that statement except that which I told you before.”
He said he did not want to name his cousin and to those who might say he was not telling the truth about his relative, he said, “Everybody could say what they want, I know what I meant.”
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
According to the CyberCrime Bill 2017, Section 18 (1) A person who uses a computer system to communicate with the intention to cause harm to another person commits an offence.
2) In determining whether an offence is committed under this section, the Court may take into account any factor which it considers relevant, including—(a) the extremity of the language used in the communication; (b) the age and characteristics of the person involved; (c) whether the communication was anonymous; (d) whether the communication was repeated; (e) the extent of circulation of the communication; (f) whether the communication is true or false; and (g) the context in which the communication appeared.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction to a fine of $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) and to imprisonment for three years; or (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine of $250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand dollars) and imprisonment for five years.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “harm” means serious emotional distress.
Clik here to view.
