By Mark DaCosta- In a striking rebuke to the Guyana Police Force, Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty has publicly defended her decision to grant bail in a high-profile acid attack case, rejecting what she described as misleading and inflammatory statements issued by the Force. The Magistrate’s response underscores apparent tension between the judiciary and law enforcement, with McGusty standing firm. Her remarks come amid a broader national reckoning over gender-based violence and the role of the justice system in protecting victims while upholding due process.
The controversy erupted following the bail hearing of Keron Daniels, a 32-year-old man charged with hurling a corrosive substance at two women — Jilicia Leitch and Nirmala Sukraj — outside a supermarket in East Street, Georgetown. Leitch, who suffered devastating injuries including the loss of sight in one eye and severe facial burns, remains hospitalised. Sukraj sustained minor injuries in the same attack. Daniels was initially remanded on 16 September 2025, but was granted bail the following day in the sum of $500,000.
The Guyana Police Force, in a sharply worded press release, condemned the bail decision, citing the severity of the injuries and the existence of a video confession allegedly made by Daniels. The Force claimed that the accused had admitted to the crime on tape and warned of the risk of repeat offences, especially given Daniels’ prior relationship with one of the victims. They further lamented what they described as a troubling pattern of judicial leniency in cases involving violence against women, suggesting that magistrates routinely fail to consider the broader societal implications of their rulings.
However, Magistrate McGusty did not take the criticism lightly. Addressing the matter in open court, she expressed dismay at the Police Force’s portrayal of the proceedings, stating that the information circulated in their statement bore little resemblance to what had actually transpired. She revealed that the prosecution had promised to present the alleged video confession and footage of the attack but failed to do so. Instead, the prosecutor offered vague assertions that Daniels had been seen in the vicinity of the crime two hours prior — hardly the damning evidence the police had claimed.
McGusty further disclosed that the accused was not apprehended at the scene or through investigative leads, but rather turned himself in while inquiring about his wife, who had initially been detained in connection with the same incident. Daniels was charged only after his wife was released, raising questions about the integrity of the investigation and the motivations behind the arrest.
In light of the prosecution’s failure to produce the promised evidence, and the lack of compelling grounds to continue remand, the Magistrate exercised her discretion to grant bail. She announced that henceforth, all proceedings in her courtroom would be recorded to prevent future misrepresentations. “It appears the Police Force was served with erroneous information,” she said, adding that the statements attributed to her court were never made nor presented during the hearing.
Legal analysts have weighed in on the dispute, with one noting that “the judiciary is the final interpreter of the law, and its independence must be respected by all branches of government.” The analyst emphasised that while the police have a duty to protect citizens, they must also uphold the integrity of the legal process and refrain from undermining judicial decisions through public condemnation.
The case has reignited debate in our nation over the handling of gender-based violence and the balance between victim protection and the rights of the accused. While the Police Force has pledged to intensify efforts to combat violence against women, their approach in this instance has drawn criticism for appearing more performative than procedural. The absence of key evidence at the bail hearing, despite public claims to the contrary, has cast doubt on the credibility of their objections and raised concerns about the politicisation of justice.
As the matter remains before the court, the spotlight now turns to the prosecution’s ability to substantiate its claims and present a coherent case. In the meantime, Magistrate McGusty’s resolute stance serves as a reminder that the rule of law must prevail — even when public sentiment runs high. Her decision, though controversial, reflects a commitment to fairness and judicial integrity that should be applauded, not attacked , said one analyst.
