The Alliance For Change (AFC) has welcomed the dismissal of a drug trafficking charge against former parliamentarian Devin Sears, saying the ruling reaffirms the importance of due process and the presumption of innocence in the administration of justice.
Sears, a former A Partnerhsip for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC ) Member of Parliament in Guyana’s 12th Parliament, was arrested in October 2025 after police intercepted a minibus he was driving near the Old Bamia Police Checkpoint on the Soesdyke-Linden Highway and discovered approximately 310.71 kilogrammes (685 pounds) of cannabis concealed in several bags.
He was jointly charged with passenger Albert Sandy, who subsequently admitted ownership of the narcotics, pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Sears consistently denied any involvement in drug trafficking and maintained that he was merely providing transportation. The case attracted significant public attention because of his status as a former parliamentarian and political figure.
Sears was originally charged before Magistrate Rushelle Liverpool at the Linden Magistrate’s Court in October 2025.
When the matter was called in court on today, the defence successfully argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Sears. The magistrate subsequently upheld a no-case submission, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
The court found that there was insufficient evidence upon which Sears could be convicted and upheld the no-case submission, resulting in the dismissal of the charge.
In a statement following the ruling, the AFC said the outcome vindicated its longstanding position that the judicial process should be allowed to run its course.
“The Alliance For Change (AFC) notes the dismissal of the drug trafficking charge against Mr. Devin Sears after the court upheld a no-case submission and found that there was insufficient evidence upon which a conviction could be secured,” the party stated.
“We welcome the decision of the court and respect the judicial process that led to this outcome. The ruling serves as a reminder that allegations, regardless of how serious, are not evidence, and public opinion can never be allowed to replace due process and the fair administration of justice.”
Under Guyana’s criminal justice system, a no-case submission is made when the defence contends that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a case requiring an answer from the accused. Once such a submission is upheld, the accused is not required to call evidence in his defence and the matter is dismissed.
The AFC said the case highlighted the dangers of individuals being judged in the public arena before the evidence is tested in court.
“At the same time, we strongly condemn the manner in which this matter was exploited in sections of the public domain and by political propagandists who sought to convict Mr. Sears in the court of public opinion long before the courts had the opportunity to examine the evidence,” the party said.
“The reckless dissemination of accusations, innuendo, and politically motivated narratives caused unnecessary damage to the reputation of an individual who has now been vindicated by the judicial process.”
The party maintained that throughout the proceedings it supported Sears’ right to a fair hearing and the constitutional protections afforded to every citizen.
“Throughout this difficult period, the AFC stood firmly in support of Mr. Sears’ right to a fair hearing and the constitutional protections afforded to every Guyanese citizen.”
The AFC also praised Sears’ legal team, led by AFC Leader Nigel Hughes and attorney Bernard Da Silva. “We extend our congratulations to his legal team, including Mr. Nigel Hughes and Mr. Bernard Da Silva, whose diligent representation ensured that the facts were properly tested before the court and that justice prevailed.”
The dismissal brings to a close a case that generated considerable public and political attention following Sears’ arrest last year. While the allegations attracted widespread commentary, Thursday’s ruling means that the court found there was insufficient evidence for the matter to proceed to a defence, reinforcing the principle that criminal convictions must be based on evidence capable of meeting the legal threshold required by the courts.
