Nigerian national Paul Ateli, who the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) has implicated in the GPOC cocaine bust was yesterday remanded to prison after making his appearance before Magistrate Sueanna Lovell at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
The 42-year-old self-employed language translator denied the January 23 charge which alleges that at North Road, Georgetown, he had in his possession 510 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
On Tuesday, cosmetologist Debbie Barker was arraigned in connection with this bust and was remanded to prison by acting Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry who then informed that her matter would have been transferred to Court Two for yesterday.
At Tuesday’s hearing, CANU Prosecutor Oswald Massiah informed the magistrate that Ateli had already been in custody and would have been placed before the courts yesterday.
Magistrate Sewnarine-Beharry then ordered that his matter be taken before Magistrate Lovell at Court Two who would also be dealing with Barker’s matter.
When asked by the court, Ateli said that he is not a permanent resident of Guyana but is a frequent visitor. On this trip, he said he had planned to spend two weeks before returning to Nigeria.
Massiah made an application for Ateli to be remanded to prison, stating that while he had furnished the court with a Lot 22 Delhi Street, Prashad Nagar address, he had given investigators a Suriname address as well.
This, Massiah argued, raised concern of a possible flight risk. He said too that while the accused told the court that he would be here for two weeks, he told investigators two years.
Additionally, the prosecutor related that investigations have so far revealed that Ateli had entered Guyana via Suriname by illegal means. “He has no documentation whatsoever,” Massiah stressed. He said also that this aspect of the investigation will be handed over to the police who will likely be instituting additional charges against the accused.
Up to this point, the unrepresented father of one had not responded to the submissions made by the prosecution. When given a chance to speak, however, he calmly said “I don’t know how things work here, so I prefer not to say anything.”
The presiding magistrate then informed both defendants that they would be remanded to prison. Barker’s matter was adjourned to February 9 and Ateli’s for February 13 for commencement of their trials.
Meanwhile, Attorney Mortimer Codette who is representing Barker in association with Attorney Paul Fung-a-Fat renewed an application for his client to be admitted to reasonable bail.
Codette in a passionate but unsuccessful bid to secure his client’s pretrial liberty contended that Ateli’s manipulation of his client amounted to special circumstances.
“It was his [Ateli’s] manipulation of my client to do his bidding, unknowing to her what was in the package she was attempting to post that led to her arrest,” Codette emphasized.
The attorney posited too that it was the accurate information his client provided to the police that led to Ateli’s arrest; a task the lawmen had been trying to accomplish for the past two years.
Massiah in objecting to counsel’s submissions said that because Barker’s detention later led to Ateli’s arrest, did not exonerate her from the charge.
According to the prosecutor, during the trial the specifics of the matter will be fully ventilated as the prosecution will lead evidence which will show that there was a prior arrangement whereby Barker had supplied Ateli with her photograph to be used in the production of a false ID card bearing the name Dawn Ayesha Jordan.
Additionally, Massiah said that on the day in question, Barker equipped herself with what appeared to be a light bill of a Lot 52 Victoria Avenue, Eccles location; contrary to the Lot 2655 South Ruimveldt Park address she told the court was hers. These, Massiah argued, were clear acts of deception; hence the prosecution’s objection to Barker being granted her pretrial liberty.
Massiah strongly contended that the issues raised by counsel do not amount to special circumstances as they relate to the offender and not the offence.
According to Codette, the explanations provided by the prosecution exposed the manipulation his client suffered at the hands of Ateli.
The magistrate said that Barker would be remanded to prison, noting that she had been given an early date for commencement of trial.
Codette enquired whether the defendants were jointly charged or not and the magistrate informed that the matters were on separate case dockets.
Both cases, however, arise out of the same circumstance.
