President of the Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) Rickford Burke, an Attorney-at-Law and former advisor to President Desmond Hoyte, is calling for the removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Hack on allegations that she attempted to mislead the judges of the CCJ and for overreaching in the Shawnette Bollers vs Navin Singh racial incitement court matter.
Burke made the call during a thirty-minute interview on the popular social media show “In the Ring” hosted by Sherod Duncan. Burke is accusing the DPP of being ignorant of the law and of manufacturing evidence not in the record to advance her weak argument before the Court a week ago. The actions of the DPP border on prosecutorial misconduct that is an embarrassment to Guyana, Burke argues.
Furthermore, the DPP’s professionalism and judgement was recently questioned by Burke after the country’s top prosecutor appeared before the CCJ. The President of the CCJ Justice Adrian Saunders had cause to reprimand Mrs. Hack for attempting to mislead the court by using the gruesomeness and brutality of the murder as evidence why Small should be convicted but presented no evidence upon which he can be linked to the murder. The DPP was then reminded by the CCJ President that of her role and function is to weigh the evidence and not cast Judgement. “You are the country’s DPP and you have to be very measured in your words,” Justice Saunders posited.
Burke on the other hand also accused the DPP of being a biased prosecutor and of rubber-stamping police investigations.
Shawnette Bollers vs Navin Singh
The only institution vested with the authority/powers to interpret legislation or determine the meaning of a section or word when there is ambiguity is the High Court.
The DPP embarked on a statutory interpretation of sections of the Racial Hostility Act when in her statement justifying the decision to dismiss private criminal charges against Navin Singh stated:
“The aforementioned section when read as a whole suggests that the words spoken by the offender must also be transmitted for general reception by wireless telegraphy or telegraphs or be reproduced in a public place from a record. The words must be spoken in a public place and transmitted for general reception by wireless telegraphy or telegraphs or be reproduced in a public place from a record. The evidence in this file does not fit the criteria stated in Section 2 of the aforementioned Act.
Further, the word ‘against’ used in the section tends to suggest that the offender by his words tend to cause others to act in a certain way against the virtual complainant. Put another way, the offence is created when the offender’s expressions cause others to act in a certain way against a section of the public or a person on the grounds of their race (his expressions excited or attempted to excite others to act with hostility or ill-will against a section of the public or against another person). ”
The CGID President was livid that the Director of Public Prosecutions, could show such blatant ignorance of the law and constitutional interpretation.
“She interpreted what Parliament meant when it described how the offence can be committed… that’s not her job, the DPP’s job is to know the law and apply it according, Burke stressed. Further, when there is any ambiguity or uncertainty, it’s up to the courts to decide what the relevant section meant or suggest,” Burke noted.
The DPP
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) back in March had caused to rule that Guyana’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) could not unilaterally order a Magistrate to conduct another preliminary inquiry but must instead ask the High Court to decide.
In a unanimous decision that saw murder-accused Guyana-born American Marcus Bisram being set free, the CCJ struck down Section 72 of the Criminal Law Procedure Act as unconstitutional. The court in its ruling flayed the DPP for flouting even the procedures laid out in the Act she was relying on and found it to be constitutionally flawed.
The problem with this is that the carefully prescribed sequential approach to the matters referenced in those letters was not followed. The fact that, as the DPP submitted, she had already been briefed about the statements the witness had given in the PI before she wrote the letters, and that she only instructed the assistant DPP to submit the second letter after the latter had told her that the depositions “were in keeping with the evidence”, does not meet the required prosecutorial standard of careful deliberation,” the judgement states.
The CCJ agreed with Bisram that Section 27 was contravened, because s72 was contrary to Articles 122A, which entrenches the principle of judicial independence, 144, which secures the right to the protection of the law, and the Separation of Powers doctrine. He also claimed that, in any event, the DPP did not precisely follow the steps required by the section.
Generally, the CCJ frowned on Section 72, which allows the DPP to order a magistrate, saying it violated the separations of powered doctrine.
More, In The Ring.
