The Guyana Police Force (GPF) has disputed claims made by former Sports Director Christopher Jones that Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum was present during the controversial operation at his home that saw the police remove barbershop equipment and arrest him.
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.
Blanhum is listed among the defendants in the action, through which Jones has asked the court to order the police to immediately return the seized items.
Jones has claimed that on the night of August 20th, during a power outage, Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum and 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.
However, in a statement yesterday the Guyana Police Force categorically denied the claims. “…Senior Superintendent Wendell Blanhum was at no time physically involved in the operation at Jones’s residence; a fact of which the former Director of Sports is quite aware as it was an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) who had identified himself to him as the rank in-charge when the Police visited his home that night,” it said in a statement, while adding that the probe involving Jones is ongoing.
Jones has contended 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.”
Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, who is also a defendant in the suit, 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. In his defence, which was filed by State Solicitor Prithima Kissoon, Nandlall said that the police did not arrest Jones nor did they detain him as he alleged. He said that contrary to Jones’ claim, the officer-in-charge 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.
