Attorney Tamieka Clarke, through her legal team, has officially initiated legal proceedings against the State following her arrest by the Guyana Police Force’s Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) on October 28.
Clarke, who is being represented by Attorney Nigel Hughes, Ronald Daniels and Shawn Shewram, was arrested by SOCU after she consistently advised her client to remain silent during questioning.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall has been named as the respondent in the proceedings.
Clarke is seeking several reliefs from the court along with damages. Her legal team is arguing that her fundamental right to personal liberty, guaranteed by Article 139 of the Constitution, was breached with SOCU arrested her for executing her job as an attorney. The fixed date application, filed yesterday, is asking the court to declare that Clarke’s fundamental right to freedom against arbitrary arrest as set out in Article 40 of the constitution had been violated by SOCU.
Additionally, Clarke is asking the court to declare that SOCU’s seizure of her cell phone was unlawful. She is also asking the court to affirm that an attorney-at-law admitted to practice in Guyana is entitled to advise a client of their entitlement to remain silent when being questioned by members of any law enforcement agency or body in Guyana as well as consulting with their client in private without the contents of the said consultation being recorded in any way including utilizing audio-visual recording by any law enforcement agency.
In their filing, Clarke’s attorneys are seeking to have the court uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms as set out in Article 40 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana which includes the right of access of all arrested, detained or imprisoned persons to be provided time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with an attorney-at-law, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing of and or recording by law enforcement officials, they are submitting.
They are also seeking $300,000 in damages from SOCU for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Additionally, exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the court, are being sought for Clarke’s arrest based on the advice she offered her client.
In her supporting affidavit, Clarke testified that she has been practising law for over seven years and has been attached to the law firm of Allicock and Dodson for over three years now. She said that she was retained by Leon Lespoir on October 25 and accompanied him to SOCU in relation to an ongoing investigation relating to him.
She said while here they met with Constable 23975 Shaquille Duke and was joined by Superintendent Krishnadat Ramana who indicated to her that he required Laspoir to provide a statement concerning the ongoing investigation and enquired about her client’s availability to provide the said statement. She said that they agreed to return on October 27, as requested, but also informed him that her client will be exercising his constitutional right to remain silent.
“Superintendent Ramana asked me if I was aware of what ‘obstruction’ meant, and he indicated to me that Mr Lespoir was compellable to provide a statement. Superintendent Ramana further indicated to me that if I prevented Mr Lespoir from providing a statement, he would arrest me, and that ‘Counsel may need Counsel’ on the said date,” her affidavit submitted.
On October 27, Clarke along with her firm’s senior partner Shaun Allicock accompanied her client to SOCU where they were informed by Sergeant 17955 Winston Singh that Superintendent Ramana was busy and were advised to return the following day. The same team returned on October 28, where a number of events played out.
“At the said location, I was informed by Mr Lespoir and verily believe that the police had provided him with a written statement and requested for him to sign it. I repeated my advice to Mr Lespoir about his right to remain silent and I informed Constable 23975, Shaquille Duke, that Mr Lespoir declined to sign the statement.
“I entered a room and enquired from Sergeant Singh, Constable Duke and Officer Navindra Persaud whether Mr Lespoir was under arrest. I indicated to them that Mr Lespoir was desirous of leaving the premises of SOCU and returning to work. Superintendent Ramana entered the room that I was in and he instructed Officer Navindra Persaud to arrest me,” she submitted.
Clarke further stated that she was instructed to follow Persaud into a room in the upper flat of SOCU’s Headquarters. She was placed to sit on a chair in the middle of the room after which Ramana entered to tell her that she was under arrest for obstruction and left. While in the room, she was in communication with Allicok via her cellphone after which it was forcibly taken away by Persaud.
At that time, she attempted to leave the room but was prevented from doing so by the two male officers who executed her arrest.
“A female rank that I had met at the gate when I entered the compound, Lance Corporal Alder, entered the room and sat in front of the desk by the door. I was wearing a Samsung Smart Watch that allows me to make and receive calls. I observed on my watch that I was receiving a call from my Attorney-at-Law, Mr C. A. Nigel Hughes, and I answered the call. I informed Mr Hughes that I had been arrested by SOCU and that I was upstairs. Officer Alder demanded that I hand over my watch and she attempted to take my watch from me,” the affidavit stated.
Clarke said that she attempted to exit the room again but was blocked by Sergeant Singh. She also requested the presence of her lawyers but no mind was paid to her.
Subsequently, attorneys Allicock, Everton Singh-Lammy and Jacy Archibald entered the room and Singh-Lammy requested Clarke’s phone from the officers who ignored him. Shortly after, Hughes attempted to enter but was prevented.
Singh-Lammy later left the room so Hughes could get access to his client.
“Mr Hughes entered the room and enquired from the Officers in the room about the charge and the particulars. Constable Duke indicated that he had to go and get instructions from his superiors. A few officers left the room and returned. One of the officers indicated that I was arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Mr Hughes enquired from the rank what the particulars were, and the rank stated Mr Hughes would have to call his superior, Mr Karimbaksh, for that. Mr Hughes attempted to call Mr Karimbaksh on his cellular phone but was told that Mr Karimbaksh was busy at the time. Constable Persaud then entered the room and placed my phone on my lap. After a few minutes, I was told that I was free to go by one of the Officers,” Clarke said.
She said that the entire ordeal lasted just about an hour. Additionally, the lawyer said that she was intimidated by the presence of all male officers who were present in the room when she was arrested.
The move to arrest Clarke has sparked widespread condemnation from the local Bar Association and Regional and International Bar Associations as well.
