By Mark DaCosta- In a momentous ruling on June 20, 2025, Guyana’s acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire S.C quashed the overseas service of summons in the case of Rickford Burke v. Attorney General et al., declaring it unlawful and reinforcing critical principles surrounding freedom of expression. This judgment, delivered by a senior member of the judiciary, is detailed in a press release by distinguished lawyer Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde.
Criminal defamation – the central issue in this case – refers to making false statements about an individual that harm their reputation and can lead to criminal charges being levied against the offender.
Forde’s press release illuminated the pressing need for the judiciary to curtail the adverse implications of such laws on free speech practices, arguing that the current provisions were misaligned with democratic values and human rights principles.
During the proceeding, the Chief Justice firmly stated that any summons service directed at Mr. Burke, who resides in New York, lacked lawful authority and was thus rendered ineffective.
This pivotal judgment was built on the foundational notion that the jurisdiction of Guyanese magistrates is confined to the country’s borders, a sentiment echoed in Section 68(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Magistrates) Act.
The alarming precedent of allowing the Guyana Police Force, or any individual officer, to infringe upon this jurisdiction by serving summons abroad was effectively nullified, painting a clear picture of the boundaries within which our legal system operates.
“The Court declared that the purported service of the summonses on Mr. Burke — resident in New York — was unlawful and void,” Forde articulated following the decision, emphasising the Chief Justice’s unequivocal stance against transnational legal overreach.
The judgment, therefore, not only restored faith in legal definitions but also acted as a safeguard against unwarranted implications of governmental authority extending beyond our territorial reach.
Moreover, the ruling delivered a significant blow to the concept of criminal defamation, labelling it unconstitutional and unnecessary for the protection of individual reputations. The Chief Justice articulated that such statutes are fundamentally at odds with the principles of freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution. “Criminal defamation of private individuals is impermissible under Guyana’s Constitution and constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of expression,” Forde noted.
The implications of this landmark ruling extend beyond the immediate case. It initiates a call to action for Parliament to review and amend existing statutes to ensure that future service provisions are clear and do not infringe upon constitutional rights. Legislative reforms are anticipated, notably concerning the extraterritorial aspects of jurisdiction in serious indictable offences, ensuring that due processes are respected without compromising civil liberties.
In addition, the judgment reverberates respect for international legal norms, reinforcing the necessity for our judiciary to operate within established bounds. The affirmation of due process stands as a testament to the importance of judicial oversight and the ultimate role of the High Court in checking potential legislative overreach by the executive. “It’s expected that Parliament will amend relevant acts to clarify extraterritorial jurisdiction,” Forde proclaimed, reflecting an optimism for the future of legal advocacy.
Ultimately, this significant ruling reinforces the safeguards of free speech, potentially ushering in a new chapter for legal activism and civil liberties. The decision sends a potent message to both citizens and lawmakers alike that peaceful dissent and criticism should never be misconstrued as criminal acts. By reaffirming that our legal framework must align with democratic values, the Chief Justice has catalysed vital dialogue around the protection of freedoms central to our identity as a nation.
Forde encapsulated the essence of this judgment by stating, “This erudite ruling is a triumph for the rule of law and democratic values.” It kindles hope that the very fabric of our nation hinges upon a commitment to safeguarding democracy while allowing for the freedom of thought and expression — principles that lie at the heart of our cherished rights as citizens. Indeed, the judgement serves not only as a legal boundary but as a resounding endorsement of individual freedoms.
