Former Sports Director Christopher Jones has filed a lawsuit against the Guyana Police Force for allegedly breaching his constitutional rights to protection from arbitrary search and deprivation of property in wake of a controversial search of his home and the removal of 18 barber chairs and two air conditioners altogether valued at $4.8 million.
Jones said that his subsequent detention was also a breach of his constitutional right to personal liberty.
He wants the court to immediately order the police to return the seized items, which he says belongs to him. He is also seeking damages.
But in defence, Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall has disputed Jones’ account of his arrest and detention and further said that the police did provide to him their reason for wanting to execute the search, which was to recover items belonging to the State.
Nandlall said, too, that Jones did not object to the search of his premises, but only requested time to consult his attorney.
In his claim, Jones said that on the night of August 20th, during a power outage, Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum accompanied by other police cordoned off his premises and demanded entry without a warrant or any lawful reason.
Jones said he asked the lawmen for their warrant and none was produced, so he denied them entry to his premises.
He said he thereafter applied for and was granted an interim conservatory order dated the same date restraining the police from entering his property.
He said that the order was served on the police but that despite this the next morning about 12.30 am, Blanhum and Inspector Rodwell Sarabo and other police officers trespassed by jumping the fence unto his premises.
Jones described the entry as arbitrary and without any excuse or justification. He contends that they wrongfully seized his property, restrained, arrested and detained him.
Jones said that he was transported to various police stations before finally being “wrongfully restrained” and imprisoned at the Diamond Police Station. He said that the conduct of the defendants was “particularly egregious” and has entitled him to an award of exemplary damages.
He said that during the forced entry Blanhum and Sarabo broke one of the doors to his home, damaging a lock costing $5,300 and thereafter made an untidy search of his premises. He said that the actions of the defendants were arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional.
Jones further contends that the manner in which the defendants executed the entry, search and his arrest was “violent, aggressive arbitrary, unconstitutional and devised to evoke, and did evoke fear” in himself and family.
He said, too that the presence of armed officers and the cordoning of his property were wholly unjustified and disproportionate to the offence alleged, especially since he cooperated with the police “in a lawful manner” and “offered no resistance.”
Jones opined that the actions of the police were meant to humiliate him as a public figure.
Nandlall, in his defence, which was filed by State Solicitor Prithima Kissoon, said that the police did not arrest Jones nor did they detain him as he alleged. He said that contrary to Jones’ claim, Sarabo explained to him that they were present to conduct a search of his premises for barber chairs, air conditioning units and other items that were “fraudulently or unlawfully” obtained and which belonged to the state.
According to Nandlall, Jones made no objections to the search but requested time to consult his attorney and informed thereafter that he had been advised by his lawyer to request a warrant from the defendants.
The AG contends that the police had gone to Jones’ house on reasonable suspicion that he had state property at his residence. It is claimed that Jones and his wife verbally abused two of the ranks who made their way into their home and one was also allegedly assaulted and the other was locked in.
While Jones’ claim indicates that the police were served with a court order preventing the search, the AG’s response says that attorney Darren Wade threw unidentified papers at the feet of one of the ranks. It adds that due to the standoff, instructions were given for Jones’ arrest and the items that were the reason for the police’s presence were removed from the property and lodged.
“It is further contended that a police officer has the power to arrest, without warrant, anyone who, he suspects, with reasonable cause, is about to commit an offence or whom he suspects has already committed such an offence, moreover the offence need not to have been committed to legitimize the arrest without warrant by a police officer,” his response adds, while arguing that Jones is not entitled to any damages and the claim should be dismissed.
The police have launched a probe into what they say is the alleged larceny of state assets by Jones.
The items which were seized were purchased as part of a $4 million government-funded project under the Sustainable Livelihoods and Entrepreneurial Development (SLED) programme under the former APNU+AFC Administration.
Jones had been arrested hours after his lawyer secured an order barring the law enforcers from entering his Georgetown home without a warrant.
Vanloads of lawmen had turned up at Jones’ house around 6.30pm on August 20th and had attempted to enter his yard but Jones questioned if they had a warrant. They had none and remained outside the house after a large crowd had gathered, including members of the APNU+AFC coalition.
At around 12.30 the following morning, the police allegedly broke a lock and entered his home, arresting him and removing the boxes. Jones was later released on $100,000 station bail.
Former President David Granger, the leader of the PNCR, to which Jones belongs, called the operation a coordinated political attack.
