Attorney for former policeman, Shawnette Bollers has filed a new private criminal charge against attorney-at-law Nirvan Singh, whom she has accused of assaulting her.
The new charge, filed by Eusi Anderson, states that on March 20, 2022 at Middle and Cummings streets, Georgetown, Singh unlawfully and maliciously assaulted the woman, contrary to Section 21 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act. The new charge is expected to be read in before Principal Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus in a Georgetown court on June 10, 2022.
The new charge was occasioned by the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue the initial private criminal charge against Singh for allegedly inciting racial hostility. Bollers had promised to challenge the DPP’s decision. “The DPP’s power is neither divine nor absolute. It is circumscribed by the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and its final appellate Court, the CCJ. It is circumscribed by my client’s God ultimately. I close with my client’s instructions – ‘let this go all the way to the CCJ,’” Bollers’ Attorney had said in a statement.
Singh was initially charged and placed on $100,000 bail when he appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court in April. However, when the matter was called on Wednesday (May 18), the Principal Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs read a letter addressed to the Chief Magistrate, in which the DPP exercised powers conferred on her to discontinue to the charge against Singh. Article 187 (1) confers the DPP with this power. Singh was accused of inciting racial hostility by calling Bollers a “black money” and “black people have no purpose in life.” According to Anderson, the DPP offered no reason for the withdrawal. “The DPP’s letter is absolutely silent on the reasons for the exercise of her power to discontinue. The DPP’s letter is also silent on the status of the police file which is allegedly before her for advice,” the Attorney said.
In its defence the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had said that the allegations levied against Singh do not fit the criteria outlined in the Racial Hostility Act. Further, the DPP submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that the Attorney spat in the face of Police Constable Shawnette Bollers as alleged. the DPP explained that it received the file – Police v. Nirvan Singh for the Offence of Racial Hostility – on April 11 for legal advice. That advice was given and the file was returned to the Guyana Police Force on April 24, 2022.
In arriving at its decision, the DDP Chambers said it relied on Section 2 of the Racial Hostility Act, Chapter 23:01. That section states: “A person shall be guilty of an offence if he willfully excites or attempts to excite hostility or ill-will against any section of the public or against any person on the grounds of their or his race – (a) By means of words spoken by him in a public place or spoken by him and transmitted for general reception by wireless telegraphy or telegraphs; or (b) By causing words spoken by him or by some other person to be reproduced in a public place from a record; or (c) by means of written (including printed) matter or pictorial matter published by him.”
The DPP said when read as a whole, the section suggests that the words spoken by the offender must be transmitted for general reception by wireless telegraphs or be reproduced in a public place from a record.
“The words must be spoken in a public place and transmitted for general reception by wireless telegraphy or telegraphs or be reproduced in a public place from a record. The evidence in this file does not fit the criteria stated in the section 2 of the aforementioned Act,” the Office of the DPP said.
Further, it explained that the word ‘against’ used in the section tends to suggest that the offender by his words tend to cause others to act in a certain way against the virtual complainant.
“Put another way, the offence is created when the offender’s expressions cause others to act in a certain way against a section of the public or a person on the grounds of their race…Here again, the evidence is not consistent with the offence creating section of the Act as the words used by the suspect were not spoken in order to excite others to act with hostility or ill-will against the complainant,” the DPP Chambers reasoned.
Further, the Chambers submitted that the allegation that Singh spat on Bollers is inconsistent. It explained that Bollers, in her written report in the police diary, stated that she was verbally and racially attacked by Singh, and was subsequently asked to leave the premises.
“…Because he was in front of my face spitting up where I could smell the high volume of alcohol on his breathe I pick up my belongings, I step out of the location…,” a section of her report read. The DPP said based on Bollers’ report, Singh was “spitting up” and had not spat on her, as alleged in her complaint on March 21.
In support of this position, it quoted Bollers as reporting: “When Mr. Singh approached the hut door again and continue shouting, with spit from his mouth spraying in my face, get out of yard, get out of my yard.”
According to the DPP, “based on her evidence as a whole, it is clear that he was “spitting up” while speaking and it was not a deliberate act of spitting.” Bollers’ Attorney, Eusi Anderson, on Wednesday, called on the DPP to make public all documents considered in the exercise of her discretion to discontinue the case, warning that “failure to do so on or before Monday 23rd May, 2022 will result in legal proceedings.” Initially, the Office of the DPP had no provided no reason for its decision. Bollers, maintaining that she must have her day in court, has threatened to appeal.
