Cocaine trafficking convict Vishnu ‘Haffa’ Bridgelall is yet to commence payment of the $254 million fine imposed on him in 2007 with his conviction for cocaine trafficking and according to Supreme Court Registrar Sueanna Lovell it is now up to the state to ensure he pays up.
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) recently upheld Bridgelall’s conviction for trafficking in over 100 kilogrammes of cocaine but ruled that while he will face no more jail time because of the delays in the appeal process, he still has to pay the fine.
Bridgelall’s case has been further complicated by the fact that he longer resides in Guyana. He left for Canada to seek medical treatment after being discharged by the Full Court in 2009 and this newspaper has been told that he has never returned.
One of his attorneys, Sanjeev Datadin, recently confirmed to the Sunday Stabroek that his client has not commenced payment of the fine. Based on what he said, there is no intention to voluntarily pay, given the ruling of the CCJ. “We don’t know that they will be able to enforce that [the fine],” he said, before explaining that the court ruled that there was a violation of his client’s rights.
Given the sum involved, observers had questioned what is to happen next to ensure that the fine is paid given that this was part of the sentence handed down.
Lovell, when asked what happens in a case where a convict resides abroad and the CCJ – which is the final court – rules that a fine imposed must be paid, said that this will fall within the state’s enforcement capability.
Speaking based her knowledge, she said that the state, in seeking to enforce the judgement, may go after property or money that the person may still have in Guyana. She was unsure if in this instance the state will have to go back to court to initiate forfeiture procedures to get what is owed or whether it can proceed, based on the judgement, and seize property owned by the convict to satisfy that aspect of the judgement.
Asked if steps will have to be taken to get the money, she said, “Yes, they will have to, providing that the state is interested enough in seeking to enforce that.”
She said she did not know of any narcotics case where the monetary aspect of the judgement was enforced. Lovell has never inquired whether convicts, having served their sentences, pay the fine that was imposed. “I don’t know whether that has been done. I certainly have never heard of a case where somebody has paid the fine because a lot of times it is the hefty…,” she noted.
According to the Registrar, if a narcotics convict doesn’t pay, it is up to the state to decide whether it wants to go after them to enforce that part of the sentence.
Bridgelall was one of several persons who had been charged following a Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) raid in May, 2007, at Enterprise, East Coast Demerara, where agents discovered over 100 kilogrammes of cocaine in fish glue which was being prepared for export.
On November 23, 2007, Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs jailed Bridgelall for ten years and imposed a fine of $254 million, after she found him guilty of two counts of possession of over $84 million worth of cocaine for trafficking.
Bridgelall appealed his conviction at the Full Court, which discharged him on December 4, 2009, by which time he had served 30 months of his 10-year sentence.
The state subsequently appealed the Full Court decision to the Guyana Court of Appeal and on October 24, 2016 – nearly seven years later – the Court of Appeal reinstated the magistrate’s ten-year sentence against Bridgelall. In December 2016, Bridgelall appealed Court of Appeal ruling at the CCJ.
The CCJ, in its ruling, affirmed the conviction of Bridgelall on each of the two charges laid against him but altered the two consecutive sentences handed down by Magistrate Isaacs to two concurrent sentences. In its judgement, the court also declared that Bridgelall’s constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had been breached and the court, therefore, stayed any further action against Bridgelall arising out of the proceedings with respect to enforcement of the remainder of the prison sentences imposed by the magistrate.
According to the judgement, having already served 30 months of concurrent five-year sentences, Bridgelall would have been eligible for remission in respect of 24 of those months. “He has already served, at the very least, one half of his sentence and has gotten on with his life. He is currently in Canada and, according to what we have been told, under doctor’s orders that it is inadvisable for him to travel,” the court said. It was pointed out too that the Constitution does not circumscribe the nature or extent of the redress the judiciary is entitled to afford a litigant whose fundamental rights have been breached. The judgement said the court considered that the appropriate remedy in this matter would be to stay any further action against Bridgelall with respect to the enforcement of the imposed prison sentence arising out of these proceedings but he “must pay his fine, if he has not already done so.” It was made clear that because of the undue delay during the appeal process, he should not go back to prison however justified that would have been if no such delay had occurred.
Meanwhile, a prominent attorney is also of the view that is the state that now has to take charge of the enforcement of the fine. He said that the state has two options in this matter: either pursuing civil proceedings against Bridgelall or confiscating all of his assets.
The attorney made it clear that the fine imposed in this case is more a civil arrangement, which should be pursued by the government.
It was explained that under the law, a magistrate cannot impose an alternative sentence to an unpaid fine.
Sunday Stabroek was told that with narcotics-related offences, once a fine is attached to the sentence, a convict has a choice of when to pay; that is, while serving the sentence or after leaving jail.
He said that if that convict fails to pay the fine, government can “still come behind you and put you before the court and take away your assets.”
He argued that there is nothing standing in the way of the state with regard to ensuring the fine is paid and he was of the opinion that government should pursue this matter and other similar ones where the hefty fines have not been paid.
According to the attorney, once the sentence has been served, the prison has no choice but to release a convict even if the fine was not paid. The fine, he stressed, has nothing to do with the prison authorities, particularly since there was no alternative given in the event that the fine is not paid. “If you come out and don’t pay it, it has to be understood that that is still a judgement …there is no custodial penalty to say you should serve more time…You are walking as a man who cannot be put in jail but there is a fine so the government can still come for you [and] put you before the court,” he explained.
He said that the government can also await Bridgelall’s return to Guyana, given that he now resides outside of Guyana and it is unclear if the law permits extradition in this case.
There are some observers who are of the view that there should be bilateral cooperation between the two governments to either have Bridgelall return here to face civil proceedings or with respect to him paying his fine.
