A Better Hope goldsmith, whose jewellery was seized at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) on Tuesday because it was valued over US$10,000, has filed a $10M lawsuit against the government on the claim that his fundamental rights and freedoms were breached
In a constitutional motion filed by attorney Anil Nandlall on Thursday on behalf of Richard Ramjit, it was stated that the man was questioned by numerous officers and held for four hours before his gold and silver necklace and wrist band were seized by ranks of the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU). Ramjit, in an affidavit in support of the case, said he was repeatedly accused by security officers of smuggling gold which he denied. He was then told that the jewellery was being seized because it was valued at approximately $4M, which is in excess of US$10,000 ($2M) which is the threshold at which seizures can be made under amended anti-money laundering laws if there is no declaration to customs.
The CANU ranks would have been working in accordance with the mandate of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), which was set up to detect crimes related to money laundering and terrorism.
The law states that a person cannot take cash or kind, including jewellery, that exceeds a value of US$10,000 out of Guyana without first declaring it to custom officials.
Nandlall, in a statement to the media yesterday, said that in 2013 he had cautioned that if “certain amendments” were made to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act conferring a power upon law enforcement officers to confiscate cash and jewellery to the tune of US$10,000 and above the said power would “be abused and misused.”
He said that he was “ignored and the amendments were made.”
In the court documents seen by Stabroek News, Ramjit is listed as the applicant and the Attorney General of Guyana as the respondent.
The court is being asked to grant several declarations, including that the seizure of the jellewery is unlawful, contrary to and in contravention of Ramjit’s fundamental rights and freedom “not to have his property compulsorily taken possession of without the prompt payment of adequate compensation as is guaranteed to him by Article 142 of the Constitution; that the man’s arrest and detention at the airport was unlawful and violates Article 139; that his arrest and detention which caused him to miss his flight was unlawful and violated Article 148; and that the failure of the CANU ranks to extend similar treatment to the other passengers who wore similar and larger quantity of jewellery constitutes a violation of the protection against discriminatory treatment which is guaranteed by Article 149.
Additionally, Ramjit is seeking damages in excess of $10M and an order directing the return of the jewellery or an order for monetary compensation to their value.
In his affidavit in support of the notice of motion, the applicant said that he is a businessman and a goldsmith and would travel to the United States of America on a regular basis in the course of his business.
He said that he has been the owner of a gold and silver neckwear and a gold and silver wristband for approximately five years now.
The man said that he had worn the said jewellery on numerous occasions when he travelled in and out of Guyana through the CJIA, Timehri and he was never questioned by customs officials.
He estimated that the current market value of the neckwear to be $2,800,000 and the wristband at $1,200,000.
According to Ramjit, on January 19, he was scheduled to leave Guyana for John F. Kennedy Airport, New York, on Dynamic Airways Flight, Flight No. D0402, departing CJIA at or about 4pm.
He stated that as he was checking in at the airline counter, a person in civilian clothes approached him and informed him that he was an officer of CANU and that he would like to search his suitcases and ask him certain questions.
Ramjit was then escorted to a room where he met another man in plain clothes who refused to divulge his name, the document said, adding that based on the questioning he had cause to explain the contents of his carry-on bag.
He was then asked about his neckwear and according to the affidavit Ramjit explained that he had made it himself five years ago.
“The said Officer then accused me of smuggling gold and I denied, explaining to him that I have worn these two pieces of jewellery on numerous occasions on my trips in and out of Guyana”, he said in the document.
He added that the officer then suggested that “we settle the matter” or he will call in Custom Officers who will seize the said pieces of jewellery but Ramjit deposed that he made it clear that there was nothing to settle. He was then permitted to leave but after heading to the Departure Lounge after clearing security, he was stopped by a customs officer who asked to see the jewellery.
Ramjit said that he complied and after being told to proceed he observed other passengers in the Departure Longue wearing jewellery of similar value or even greater value but they were not intercepted, arrested, detained or interrogated or had their suitcases searched.
Moments later, it was stated that that same officer came into the Departure Lounge and requested that he be followed to his office and at this point Ramjit said that he was again accused of smuggling gold but again he denied the allegation.
Ramjit was then escorted to the tarmac, where his suitcase was searched by a sniffer dog, and as far as he is aware nothing was found.
He was then escorted to the customs office and subjected to further questioning about smuggling of gold. Ramjit stated in the document that the officer informed that it was unlawful to have jewellery which exceeds the value of US$10,000 without a declaration.
“This officer then demanded that I hand over to him the said neckwear and wrist band; I did so and I have not seen either pieces of jewellery since,” he said, while adding that the officer also requested that he report the following morning to SOCU at Camp Street, Georgetown.
By the time he was told to leave the flight had already left.
“During the entire ordeal, I never felt that I had the freedom to leave the company of the said officer. I was of the distinct impression that I was under arrest; indeed, I requested to make a phone call during this time and my request was refused,” he said, while stressing that he spent approximately four hours in the custody of the officer.
He said that the searching of his suitcase was done in the full view of other passengers and other persons and he held “felt publicly humiliated and embarrassed.”
The first hearing of the motion is fixed for the 15th day of February, 2016 in the Constitutional Court.
