The police practice of issuing wanted bulletins for persons they want for questioning, but against whom no allegation has been made, has been described by lawyers as illegal, a form of “character assassination” and an abuse of the process that should be stopped.
The latest wanted bulletins issued for 15 men, have been described as a “fishing expedition” that clearly showed the police had no evidence against the men, 13 of whom were questioned and released on $100,000 bail. Two others, ex-policeman Sean Belfield and Pomeroon resident David Charran are yet to make contact with the lawmen.
When police issued the bulletins they had said that the men were wanted for questioning in relation to murder. No murder was specified but when one of the lawyers turned in his client he was told that it was in relation to the Cummings Lodge, Charlestown and Campbell-ville shootings
Attorney-at-law Deborah Backer who is also the PNCR shadow home affairs minister told Stabroek News recently that this police practice gives persons “ammunition” to fight the police on legal grounds. The release of the men, some after two days of detention, showed that the police had no case, she said.
She noted that the police are under pressure to solve these crimes, as in the eyes of the public they are not performing.
“They published bulletins saying that these men are wanted for questioning into murder but then they are released two days later on bail. It goes back to the unjustified nature of these bulletins. This whole thing was just to appease the public,” she said.
Backer stated that the men’s release means that the police had nothing against them, “police just don’t have a clue as to what is going on… Police just making themselves into a laughing stock.” She described the publishing of the men’s photograph and particulars as “character assassination.”
The lawyer opined that there needs to be good suspicion before the police issue wanted bulletins.
She agreed with lawyers of some of the wanted men who described the issuing of the bulletins as unlawful.
One of men’s lawyers Glen Hanoman had told this newspaper that the police did not have the power to issue a wanted bulletin for someone for questioning. He explained that the police could only issue a bulletin if they have evidence against a person.
Hanoman had also told this newspaper that he was contemplating taking the police to court over the situation since it was becoming “ridiculous.”
One of his clients, ex-policeman Lloyd Roberts, had been questioned about the Cummings Lodge execution which claimed five lives, prior to the wanted bulletin being issued for him. After spending a night in jail he was released on station bail.
Attorney-at-law Clarissa Riehl commented that “we are living in a police state” since “police are doing this thing [issuing bulletins] with impunity.”
She said the police would often go into a particular East Bank Demerara community and round up young men who are then released after spending some time in custody. According to Riehl, in some cases they are placed on bail but are not told when to return, or else their fingerprints are taken, an act which is unlawful.
She told Stabroek News that when the police are asked why the young men were held they always say that they were wanted for questioning.
“This is a police state… This is the stage we are at, but it is not right. There is no law that allows them to do that,” she said, adding that she did not know of any law in Guyana that permits the police to issue wanted bulletins for persons wanted for questioning.
She stressed that some sort of allegation must be made before the police can issue a wanted bulletin for someone. The attorney said that the recent string of bulletins is “weird” and full of tangles.
‘Serious weapon’
According to Attorney-at-law Raphael Trotman a wanted bulletin is “a very serious weapon and could put a stain on a person for a long time.” He said that while technically police have a right to issue a wanted bulletin, “it needs to be used sparingly and used when it would lead to charges and successful prosecutions.” He pointed out that there is no particular law which states how or when they should be issued.
Trotman said bulletins should be issued after the police have checked for wanted persons and failed to locate them.
“I would expect that he or she should be contacted and invited to the police station and once sufficient efforts are made to locate him/her and he or she is not found then a bulletin could be issued. [A wanted bulletin] should be issued when there is the highest degree of urgency and issued when the persons cannot be found or contacted,” he emphasised.
Speaking on the recent case which mirrors another case last November, Trotman told Stabroek News that the police abused their authority. “In this case the men were just released. I am sure if these men, who are well known, were contacted, they would have gone into the police,” he said.
He opined that the police tried to sensationalize the issue, to make it look as through they were “on top of everything. It was like if they were on a fishing expedition or something.
“The recent case was a clear abuse of the process and in light of this, in the near future people are less likely to take police seriously now realizing that it is a gimmick,” Trotman said. He said too that the issuing of bulletins could be a form of character assassination.
“It is an abuse of the process… but one has to be very careful to subject those persons to things like profiling and character assassination,” he commented.
Attorney-at-law Anil Nandlall also said that wanted bulletins immediately brought a person’s character and reputation into question. He noted that the issuance of a wanted bulletin is a very serious matter.
“Indeed, ipso facto [by that very fact], it may be defamatory because such a publication conveys to the public a particular impression of the person to whom it relates. More fundamentally, however, it can jeopardize the personal safety and even the life of the person in relation to whom it is issued…” Nandlall added.
He stressed that the decision to issue a wanted bulletin is therefore one which must be treated with great care and circumspection, and any such decision should only be made upon cogent evidence and on a sound basis.
“Before arriving at such a decision, obviously, the police are expected to exhaust the other available opportunities to make contact with the person, for example, by making telephone calls, visiting his last known address, try[ing] to make contact through relatives and friends, etc,” he said, adding that it is only after these efforts fail that a bulletin should be considered.
Nandlall opined that if the person wanted is well known and is prominent in society, then there hardly can be a basis for issuing such a bulletin.
“If a bulletin is issued without the police even attempting to make contact with the person, or without proper evidence, then the decision to issue such a bulletin would be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and an abuse of power,” he said.
Coming under public pressure to solve the three shootings which claimed the lives of eight, including a 23-year-old woman and her toddler, the police issued 15 wanted bulletins over a two-day period.
The bulletins were issued for Bramanand Nandalall Rambrichie called ‘Bramma,’ Clayton Hutson, Mark De Abreu, Ricardo Rodrigues, Roberts, Dennis Edwards Jnr, John De Santos, Belfield, Charran, West Demerara businessman Salim Juman Azeez, Paul Daby (Snr), Paul Daby (Jnr) called ‘Randell,’ Peter Daby called ‘Spiderman,’ Blue Iguana owner Royston Peniston and Shervington Lovell called ‘Big Head.’
Some of the men turned themselves in accompanied by their lawyers while at least two were arrested by the police.
Several other persons who were arrested separate from the bulletins were questioned and subsequently released on $100,000 bail except for Dexter Marshall who was charged with the murder of Mark Caesar called ‘Lil Mark.’ Marshall is the younger brother of Steve Jupiter called ‘Steve man’ who was killed during the Cummings Lodge incident. Jupiter and Caesar were close friends.
