By Albert Baldeo- On October 13, before charges were laid, the Government of Guyana called the photographer and driver of the Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed “henchmen” and described its account of the Barr Street shooting as “uncontroverted facts” while acknowledging that police were still investigating. On November 9, DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack’s Chambers warned citizens that circulating excerpts of video evidence could prejudice a fair trial, even as your own evidence creates serious doubts as to your impartiality and judgement in this matter.
Madam DPP, will you address the Government as firmly as you addressed the public, as is your duty? An official statement can certainly prejudice the presumption of innocence even more than Facebook posts. Indeed, you must hold a press conference and explain this whole prosecutorial morass you have created.
Article 187 empowers you, exclusively, to institute criminal proceedings, take them over and discontinue them before judgment. Article 187(4) protects those decisions from direction by the President, the Attorney General or Cabinet. You need no minister’s permission to act-or anyone else’s. To seek outside intervention and direction over your independence is to derogate and denigrate the functions, integrity and independence of the DPP’s chambers, where I was a senior State Counsel, Special Prosecutor and Police Legal Advisor.
You have acted before. In 2018, you discontinued private charges against five ministers, including Volda Lawrence and George Norton, explaining in their cases that police should first investigate. In 2020, you discontinued private charges against GECOM Chairperson Claudette Singh. In 2022, your Chambers publicly explained why the evidence failed to establish the racial-hostility offence alleged against Nirvan Singh. The question today is whether Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, Mario Mohamed and Eugene Thorne will receive the same scrutiny of the evidence against each of them from you-as is your duty.
Assign a senior prosecutor or outside counsel, who had no part in the original charging decision to review the Barr Street file, now. Your own Code for Prosecutors requires continuing review. Test the firearm, ammunition and attempted perversion of justice charges against each man individually. What evidence connects each man to the alleged weapon and ammunition? What act by each supports the allegation that he tried to interfere with justice?
If a charge lacks a realistic prospect of conviction, discontinue it under Article 187(1)(c)-as is your duty. Where the evidence meets that test, decide whether prosecution serves the public interest. Respectfully, you do not even have a prima facie case here against Mohamed, Mario and Eugene.
Madam DPP, the Government itself identifies Prem Narine as the officer who fired his service handgun at an occupied car. It alleges that shots came from the car, yet its statement identifies no occupant who fired. Two investigating officers reportedly said the pistol was found only after police drove the car to Kitty Police Station. Mohamed’s presence in that car, by itself, proves neither possession nor participation in a threat. Test Narine’s claim of self-defence against the full recordings, the sequence of shots and the ballistics.
If the evidence supports a finding that Prem Narine unlawfully fired at an occupant intending to cause grievous bodily harm, as here, charge him under section 55(a) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act. If it supports an intent to kill, bring an attempted murder charge under section 104(g). Apply the same standard to the man who fired and to the men he fired upon. You have a moral and legal duty that transcends all other concerns, wherever and/or whatever.
The Government’s own account says Senior Superintendent Prem Narine fired his service handgun at the car. Request an investigation by officers outside his chain of command. Secure the complete recordings and ballistic exhibits, ensure prompt disclosure of materials that may assist the defense, and apply the same charging standard to his conduct.
You have an urgent, public duty to tell the public whether you have ordered a fresh review and requested an independent investigation, or why you are stubbornly standing by your decision. Guyanese citizens deserve those answers from the constitutional officer entrusted to make these decisions, and paid by their tax dollars.
Hon. Albert Baldeo
Former Magistrate and Senior State Counsel, Guyana
Community Leader and Judicial Delegate
President, One Guyana, Beyond Borders, NY
