|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus yesterday filed a fixed date application with the High Court under the Judicial Review Act, Cap 3:06. Represented by attorneys Attorneys: Mr. Earl Daniels, Mr. Yuborn Allicock, and Mr. Domminck Bess, Brutus names as respondents the Attorney General, Minister of Home Affairs, Police Service Commission, Commissioner of Police, and the Special Organised Crime Unit.
The case revolves around allegations of political interference and abuse of power within the Guyana Police Force. Calvin Brutus, the Applicant, alleges that he was unlawfully transferred and sent on leave due to fabricated allegations of financial crimes. He claims this was orchestrated by high-ranking government officials, including the acting Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Home Affairs, to facilitate the promotion of other individuals within the Police Force.
Brutus further alleges that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) conducted a biased and prejudiced investigation against him, influenced by political pressure. He accuses SOCU of manipulating evidence, intimidating witnesses, and unlawfully leaking information to the media and social media to tarnish his reputation.
Ultra Vires Actions
The Applicant claims that the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Police Service Commission acted ultra vires (beyond their legal power or authority) in transferring him, sending him on leave, and denying his request for overseas leave.
Political Interference and Improper Procedures
The Applicant asserts that his transfer and forced leave were politically motivated and executed through improper administrative procedures, violating the principles of natural justice. He claims he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
As such Brutus is seeking a declaration that the Commissioner of Police acted ultra vires on July 4, 2024, in transferring the Applicant from the position of Deputy Commissioner ‘Administration’ due to political directives and improper administrative procedures.”
Biased and Prejudiced Investigation
The Applicant alleges that the SOCU investigation is biased and tainted by overwhelming and undue publicity, prejudicing public perception and undermining the presumption of innocence. He claims this violates his constitutional rights.
Consequently, Brutus is seeking a declaration that the investigation is inherently biased and irreparably tainted due to overwhelming and undue publicity, which has prejudiced public perception and undermined the presumption of innocence, thereby rendering the investigation fundamentally unfair in breach of the Applicant’s constitutional rights.”
Harassment and Violation of Rights
The Applicant accuses the government of harassing him by obstructing his access to services at State Agencies, including the Central Housing and Planning Authority. He claims this violates his rights under Articles 142, 144, and 148 of the Constitution.
Again, he is seeking a declaration that the government’s actions in preventing me from accessing services at State Agencies constitute harassment and a violation of my rights under Articles 142 & 144 of the Constitution, Cap 1:01.
The Fixed Date Application is scheduled for a hearing before a judge of the High Court. The Respondents will have an opportunity to file a defence and present their case. The Court will then decide whether to grant the relief sought by the Applicant.
