The US Government has challenged the motion by Guyanese drug accused Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan to be removed from a ‘special housing’ facility, on the grounds that his confinement is based on non-punitive, administrative and security concerns that are best evaluated by the prison administrators.
Khan was taken to the Metropolitan Correction Centre (MCC) on January 23 and placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of the facility two days later. His lawyer Roberts Simels had complained, among other things that SHU is for persons who are suspected of terrorist activities.
Khan was slapped with an 18-count indictment on February 23, alleging that between January 2001 and June 2006, he occupied the position of principal administrator, organiser and leader of a continuing criminal enterprise from which he obtained substantial income and resources. The violations include various counts of distribution, importation, possession and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Should he be convicted of heading a criminal enterprise, Khan faces a mandatory life sentence.
Responding to Simels’ motion, lawyer for the MCC, Elisa Mason, said the motion should also be denied because Khan’s due process rights have not been violated and he has access to his counsel and the court.
According to Mason in court documents filed yesterday and seen by this newspaper, on February 17, Khan received a disciplinary incident report for possessing, “an unauthorized item and lying.” She said Khan was observed with chewing gum, which is an unauthorized item in MCC, in his mouth. Khan initially lied about having anything in his mouth but after being questioned, he admitted that he had the gum in his mouth and that it was given to him by his lawyer.
“While chewing gum may seem innocuous in a non-correctional setting, it poses security concerns in a penal institution. Chewing gum can be used to make imprints of keys and to jam locks,” Mason said.
A Disciplinary Committee hearing was conducted on February 20 and Khan was sanctioned.
Mason said while Khan’s case manger reported that he has orally complained about the issues in SHU he never requested formal grievance forms which the manager has at all times and regularly distributes upon inmates’ requests. Khan has since been supplied with the forms.
Mason noted that in Khan’s motion, filed by his lawyer, he “ambiguously states that he has ‘filed grievances every day of his confinement.'” She said he did not specify which forms he had requested; to whom he returned the forms or the content of the grievances. “The assertion that he has field grievances is contradicted by his unit manger
