Dear His Excellency Dr. Irfaan Ali
President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana
All Honourable Members of Parliament,
Human Rights and Civil Society Organisations:
-
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
-
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)
-
Guyana Human Rights Association
-
Guyana Bar Association
-
Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC)
-
Civil Society Organisations and Human Rights Defenders
-
All Religious Organisations and Faith Communities in Guyana
-
International Community and Diplomatic Missions in Guyana
Political Parties:
-
People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)
-
People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR)
-
We Invest in Nationhood (WIN)
-
Alliance For Change (AFC)
-
Working People’s Alliance (WPA)
-
Forward Guyana Movement
-
All Other Political Parties in Guyana’
Re: Further call for the implementation of house arrest and electronic monitoring in light of the remand of the Leader of the Opposition
Dear Honourable Officials,
The Bartica United Youth Development Group (BUYDG), through its human rights and prison reform advocacy, respectfully makes this further call on the Government of Guyana to urgently consider implementing a modern house-arrest and electronic-monitoring system as an additional option within our criminal justice framework.
This letter builds on our previous call for the introduction of GPS-enabled ankle bracelets and supervised house arrest as lawful alternatives to full remand in appropriate circumstances. We believe the current situation involving the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, brings renewed attention to the importance of establishing such a system.
We recognise that Mr. Mohamed has been remanded into custody following recent charges and that the legal proceedings remain ongoing. BUYDG respects the independence of the Judiciary and acknowledges that the courts must independently determine all questions relating to bail, including whether release is appropriate and what conditions may be imposed.
According to reports concerning the bail decision, concerns were raised about the possibility of Mr. Mohamed becoming involved in further problems while on bail. BUYDG respectfully submits that a properly established house-arrest and electronic-monitoring system could provide the court with an additional means of addressing such concerns.
Had this system already been in place, the court could have considered whether release under strict house-arrest conditions and electronic monitoring was a suitable alternative to full remand. Such a system would not guarantee bail or override judicial discretion. It could, however, provide a practical way to manage identified risks while allowing the court to consider conditional liberty.
Addressing the concerns raised in the bail decision
Where a court is concerned that an accused person may become involved in further alleged offending, fail to comply with bail conditions, interfere with an investigation or otherwise pose a risk, those concerns must be taken seriously.
However, we believe such concerns should also prompt consideration of whether appropriate safeguards could manage the identified risks. The question should not be limited to whether an accused person may be released without supervision, but whether lawful and effective conditions could provide sufficient safeguards in a particular case.
A GPS-enabled ankle bracelet, combined with house arrest and strict court-imposed conditions, could allow authorities to monitor an accused person’s location and respond to breaches. Depending on the circumstances, the court could require the individual to:
– Remain at an approved residence under house arrest;
– Wear and maintain an electronic-monitoring device;
– Observe curfews and restricted movement zones;
– Report regularly to designated authorities;
– Avoid contact with specified persons or witnesses where ordered by the court;
– Attend all court hearings and comply with other bail conditions; and
– Seek prior approval for essential travel, including medical appointments.
In Mr. Mohamed’s situation, such conditions could have been considered to address concerns about his conduct while on bail, including the reported concern that he might become involved in further problems. Rather than relying solely on a promise to comply, electronic monitoring could provide an additional layer of supervision and accountability.
The court would retain full authority to refuse bail where the circumstances require it, impose any lawful conditions it considers necessary, or revoke release if those conditions are breached.
A practical alternative to full remand
BUYDG believes that GPS-enabled ankle bracelets, supported by clear legislation, effective monitoring and strict court-imposed conditions, could provide a practical middle ground between unrestricted release and full remand.
This proposal is not intended to suggest that electronic monitoring is suitable for every accused person or every offence. There may be circumstances in which detention is necessary to protect public safety, preserve the integrity of an investigation or address other lawful concerns.
However, where the court considers that risks can be appropriately managed, supervised house arrest could provide an alternative that allows an accused person to remain within the community under strict conditions while continuing to answer the charges before the court.
Such a system could provide greater flexibility, reduce unnecessary reliance on prison custody and allow the courts to tailor conditions to the circumstances of each case.
Our recommendations
BUYDG respectfully calls on the Government and relevant authorities to:
1. Establish a legal framework for electronic monitoring** that permits courts to consider house arrest and GPS-enabled ankle bracelets as conditions of bail or other lawful forms of supervised release.
2. Develop clear eligibility criteria based on the nature of the alleged offence, public safety, risk of flight, possible interference with investigations, medical circumstances, family responsibilities and other relevant considerations.
3. Provide effective monitoring and oversight, including a properly resourced agency responsible for device management, compliance reporting and responding to breaches.
4. Ensure equal application of the law, so that electronic monitoring is not reserved for political leaders or persons with financial influence, but is available to all eligible persons who meet the lawful criteria.
5. Consult with the Judiciary, legal practitioners, civil society, human rights organisations and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure that the system is fair, workable and consistent with constitutional rights and due process.
6. Consider supervised house arrest as an alternative to full remand where appropriate, while preserving the court’s discretion to refuse bail or impose other conditions when the circumstances require it.
7. Provide clear procedures for breaches and review, ensuring that monitoring is effective, proportionate and subject to appropriate legal safeguards.
A call for modern and fair justice
Guyana’s criminal justice system must continue to develop in ways that protect public safety while respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. Full remand should not be treated as the only available response where a lawful and effective alternative may be appropriate.
The current situation involving the Leader of the Opposition brings this issue into public focus. If such a system had already been established, the court could have considered whether house arrest, GPS monitoring and strict bail conditions could have addressed the concerns raised in his case, including the reported concern that he might become involved in further problems.
This is not a request for political favour, nor is it an attempt to determine the outcome of ongoing court proceedings. It is a call for a modern system that allows risks to be managed through appropriate safeguards, where the court considers that approach lawful and suitable.
The Leader of the Opposition, like every other person before the courts, is entitled to due process and fair consideration under the law. Political office should neither grant special privileges nor become a reason for unequal treatment.
BUYDG further emphasises that any system of electronic monitoring must be accessible on fair and consistent terms. The same lawful principles should apply to ordinary citizens, regardless of their financial position, political affiliation or public standing.
We respectfully urge the Government to treat this proposal as an important step toward a more modern, humane and effective justice system in Guyana.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this open letter. BUYDG remains willing to engage constructively with the Government and relevant stakeholders on the development of this proposal.
Together, we can strengthen our justice system while upholding fairness, dignity and the rule of law.
Yours respectfully,
Kellion Leps
General President (Ag.)
Bartica United Youth Development Group (BUYDG)
