Following a ruling by the Guyana Court of Appeal yesterday, which found that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not act unconstitutionally by ordering that Marcus Bisram be tried for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt, the former accused is expected to be placed back into custody.
At the conclusion of the appellate court’s ruling yesterday, DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack asked Bisram’s attorney to hand him over to law enforcement officers, even as she signalled that the state will take steps to have him placed in custody.
His attorney—Arudranauth Gossai—begged the Court to grant an interim stay of what would be the natural effect of its ruling, as he signaled an intention to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice; but his request was denied.
Bisram now faces remand to await trial before a judge and jury.
Delivering the judgment, acting Chancellor Yonette Cumming-Edwards said the DPP had not acted in violation of the Constitution when she ordered the magistrate who conducted the preliminary inquiry (PI) to commit the accused to stand trial.
The court heard that in fact, the DPP was well within the ambit of the scope of powers reposed in her in accordance with Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act.
Chancellor Cummings-Edwards along with Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud ruled that the order of the DPP to the magistrate does not usurp any authority of the magistrate; it found instead that the DPP’s power is merely a review one.
Against this background, the Chancellor said that the exercise of the power deals narrowly – only as it relates to the order of committal – and has no other effect over the magistrate.
In this regard, the court noted that the issues of facts to be resolved in the case must be dealt with by the arbiters of fact – the jury – in a High Court trial.
The DPP had appealed a High Court ruling quashing her order that Bisram be tried for Narinedatt’s murder.
Bisram, who was extradited to Guyana from the United States a year ago, was charged with the murder of Narinedatt and remanded to prison.
Following a PI, however, he was discharged but rearrested mere hours after on the direction of the DPP. Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall would later rule in his favour, quashing the committal order.
To the DPP’s appeal, Bisram filed a cross appeal, challenging Ali-Hack’s directive, which he argued conflicted with provisions of the Constitution.
DPP Ali-Hack argued, however, that her directive for Bisram to be committed to stand trial was proper, reasonable and lawfully made in accordance with Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, with which the appellate court found favour.
Section 72 (2) (i) and (ii) (a) and (b) empowers the DPP to order a Magistrate to re-open a PI and commit an accused for trial.
Gossai, on the other hand, had argued that Section 72 was unconstitutional in view of Article 122 A (1) and asked the appellate court to declare that section repealed by Act No. 6 of 2001 enacted as Article 122 A (1).
Article 122 A provides, “all Courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
In interpreting this provision, Chancellor Cummings-Edwards said that contrary to Gossai’s arguments, the DPP’s order was not an exercise of executive power over the magistrate, nor did it amount to the magistrate not being able to independently exercise her functions.
The appellate court noted instead that Section 72 had specifically endowed the DPP with the narrow power to issue the order in the circumstance where, having reviewed the depositions, the DPP believes that there is enough evidence warranting a committal.
All the surrounding factual issues, the court said, are to properly be determined by a jury at a trial.
Gossai had vehemently argued that Ali-Hack’s order to the magistrate in effect contravened Article 122 as an attempt to usurp the judicial function of the court by the DPP who falls under the Executive arm of government.
