Attorney General Basil Williams yesterday served notice that he is appealing the decision of Justice Navindra Singh in the matter of the private criminal charge that had been brought by attorney Christopher Ram against former President Bharrat Jagdeo over statements he had made during the 2015 general election campaign.
Justice Singh had last month ruled that the private criminal charge against Jagdeo, filed in April last year by Ram, did not disclose an offence and therefore the magistrate who heard the matter had no jurisdiction.
The judge then made absolute the writ of prohibition that had been issued by Justice William Ramlal on June 26th, 2015 against Magistrate Charlyn Artiga hearing the matter.
Following Ram’s complaint, Jagdeo had been charged with making racially divisive statements in contravention of Section 139 D of The Representation of the People Act. He was accused of making the statements at a public meeting held at Babu John, Corentyne on March 8th, which could have resulted in racial or ethnic hatred among the people. He was particularly upbraided over the use of the word “coolie.”
On his first appearance, Jagdeo, through his attorneys, had submitted to Magistrate Artiga, that the particulars of offence articulated in the information, did not disclose the offence charged and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to enquire into the charge.
The magistrate had, however, overruled the submissions.
On June 26th, one of Jagdeo’s attorneys, Mursaline Bacchus, filed a notice of motion in the High Court to prevent the magistrate proceeding with the hearing of the matter on the grounds that she had no jurisdiction to do so along with a notice of motion stating that the charge was bad in law and should be dismissed.
Justice Singh in his ruling has posited that it was clear that the particulars of the offence did not disclose an offence and that there could be no resulting conviction since no criminal offence was disclosed.
“The applicant (Ram) in making the statements, for those statements to constitute an offence as charged in the information, must be shown to be calling for, supporting or encouraging the hatred of one group by another on race or ethnicity,” the judge found.
“The court does not find that the particulars of offence have disclose such facts,” he added.
The AG in his notice of appeal said he was dissatisfied with the whole of the decision and listed seven grounds of appeal.
