Justice Jainarayan Singh Jnr yesterday recused himself from the Oliver Hinckson case, sending it back to Chief Justice Ian Chang, after giving Hinckson’s lawyers two days to respond to the Attorney General’s (AG) affidavit in answer to the initial motion.
When the case was called in the High Court around 10 am yesterday, attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes, who is representing Hinckson along with a battery of other lawyers, requested two days to respond to the AG’s affidavit. Justice Singh responded to this by telling Hughes that he wanted to be recused from the case since he had been affiliated with Hinckson in the past. As an attorney in the 1980s, Justice Singh said, he had represented Hinckson in other matters.
Justice Singh said he could not in good conscience deal with the matter when he has had conversations with the accused in the past.
Hinckson was arrested along with Dorian Massay on March 5 in an early morning operation, almost one month after he made statements alleged by the state to be seditious.
A green pick-up had pulled up at Hinckson’s Meadowbrook home shortly after 8 am and both men had reportedly gone willingly with two plainclothes officers. Hinckson was subsequently charged indictably on March 11 with advocating the commission of a terrorist act and uttering seditious statements and was not required to plead to either charge.
The charges stemmed from statements Hinckson made at a press conference hosted by Mayor Hamilton Green at City Hall on February 1. Hinckson had suggested that the Lusignan slaughter was more than a criminal problem and that all the evidence pointed in such a direction. He had recommended some form of discourse between government and the disenchanted.
Hinckson had first appear-ed before Principal Magis-trate Melissa Robertson-Ogle and then Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys. Applications for bail were refused on both occasions. Hinckson’s lawyers subsequently filed a motion in the High Court.
The motion seeks a declaration that Hinckson’s statements were not in contravention of any laws of Guyana and were consistent with his right to free speech in expressing concern over matters of national interest. It also seeks a declaration that the analysis in the said statements differ from the opinions of the government and that Hinckson was arrested because he is an African Guyanese, with a different political opinion, conscience, belief and culture to that of the present government.
The motion also wants the court to find that Hinckson’s arrest for his utterances was “unconstitutional and a breach of the fundamental protected right of freedom of movement as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.”
The motion also seeks damages in excess of $10 million for breach of the plaintiff’s right to free speech and expression of his thoughts. It also addresses costs, interest and any other order the court may see as justifiable.
Hinckson’s case continues in the Magistrate’s Court tomorrow before Magistrate Gilhuys.
