Attorneys-at-law, donning their robes, took to the streets demanding action from the Guyana Police Force following the brief arrest of one of their colleagues for reportedly advising her client to remain silent.
Yesterday, over 50 lawyers, led by President of the Bar Association of Guyana Pauline Chase, picketed the Camp Street Headquarters of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), calling for immediate action against the officers that arrested attorney-at-law Tamieka Clarke on October 28. Clarke, who is attached to the law firm of Shaun Allicock and Emily Dodson, was arrested after she advised her client to remain silent and not provide SOCU with a statement.
Speaking with reporters on the picket line, the Bar Association President said that they were not satisfied with the response of the Guyana Police Force and the silence of acting Commissioner Clifton Hicken.
“It’s been a week, and we have not had any positive movement. We issued a statement on the same day [as the incident] calling for a number of actions to be taken and we haven’t seen movement in that. So we’re forced to come out here. It’s an unusual step.
I know probably in your lifetime, you’ve never seen attorneys out on the road in their robes [and] our records only reflected this happened probably 1979. I don’t know of any other time [this happened] so I think this in itself should send a strong message as to how serious we are,” Chase related.
Following the incident, the Bar Association called on the Commissioner of Police to forthwith issue an apology to Clarke; compensate her for her unlawful imprisonment; launch a full investigation into the matter with such necessary disciplinary action enforced swiftly including charges being laid against the offending officer(s), there being no lawful grounds for the arrest; and disciplinary action including termination of any officer(s) who were aware of and allowed this type conduct. Hicken has remained silent and the Police’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has been instructed to launch an investigation into the incident. Yesterday, Chase said that though a lawyer was detained, the issue is not “a lawyer issue” rather it pertains to the use of law and fundamental rights.
“The right to counsel and the right to remain silent are ingrained [in the constitution]. They’re non-negotiable rights and it affects us all,” she lamented.
Asked about how Clarke’s arrest changes the relationship between Police and lawyers, Chase said that she now hopes that the effects of the issue and widespread condemnation are used as a catalyst to improve those relations. She said that on Thursday, there was a special meeting of the Bar Association and members there officially registered the challenges they face when trying to represent their clients in the police stations across the country.
Clark, who was also on the picket line, said that although she was interviewed as part of the investigation, she is not satisfied with the way the probe has been handled.
“I would have expected by now that the Commissioner of Police would have issued a statement, at least acknowledging certain basic principles such that a counsel has the right to instruct the client to remain silent and we have not heard any,” she said.
Yesterday, the Police said that the OPR has concluded its investigation and the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for legal advice.
Suspect
Clarke’s client was under investigation for computer-related fraud and was being questioned by SOCU. She had advised him, two days prior to her arrest, not to give a statement to the police and that was communicated to the SOCU investigators. However, Superintendent Krishnadat Ramana threatened to have her arrested if her client followed through with the advice.
However, there have been reports that her client was never a suspect and rather a witness in the matter. Responding to that, Clarke said that the Police seem not to know the definition of the term suspect.
“It’s appalling that the police who investigate matters do not know what a suspect is. If you arrest someone, you had a search warrant [for their] home, you release them with reporting conditions, you tell them when they come back when to do this and that and that person is not a suspect? So if the police don’t know what the suspect is, then where are we as a society?” she questioned.
There were several senior lawyers on the picket line calling for action. Former Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland was also part of the group. He said that it is abhorrent that officers tasked with protecting the law are the ones violating it.
“What I could say is I would hope that at the end of the day, there’s not a change but a marked change in the relationship between those who investigate and prosecute, and those of us who may be called upon to defend those who are accused. The system works on a presumption that both sides work together. It doesn’t work on the presumption that one side does not work or does not equal,” he noted.
Meanwhile, former Chief Magistrate Senior Counsel Juman Yassin said that the arrest of an attorney in the execution of their duty is unbelievable. He said in the 51 years since he has been practising, he has never encountered such an incident and this is the first time that he has had to take to the streets in protest.
“I’ve practised all over this country. I’ve gone to several Police Stations all over this country and over the years, I’ve never encountered a constable threatening an attorney at law. This is disgraceful. But I want to say this you can imagine what may go on behind closed doors in the evening when an attorney at law or no members of the public is there. If something like this could happen to an attorney at law, imagine what could happen behind closed doors.
“I make this point because it is for the Police, it is for the authorities to be able to bring some sanity and to ensure that the members of the public would believe that everything goes on right. You know when a confession statement is presented in court and an accused person says I was beaten, I was threatened, sometimes judges and magistrates tend not to believe and tend to follow the police. But if something like this could happen, imagine what else could happen,” the Senior Counsel said.
Yassin added that he sincerely hopes that the message gets across to the police and they allow lawyers to operate in a non-hostile environment.
Attorney Emily Dodson, who is a partner in the Law Firm that Clarke operates out of, said that she was shocked when the incident was relayed to her. Additionally, she said that gender played a major role in SOCU’s decision to arrest Clarke.
“I also see this in gendered eyes too because I’m thinking would this type of treatment had been meted out to a male lawyer? You [the police] gone to the door and stopping the lawyer from leaving. For me, this is just a culmination of police action in eating away at your rights over time and so we’ve come to this point where we must take a stand against these abuses of citizen’s rights,” she said.
‘Water under the bridge’
In a 10 minute long video statement, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall sought to question the motive of the protest and said that he thought the issue was “water under the bridge” given his initial intervention.
Initially, Nandlall said that he received a call from attorney at law Allicock informing him of the incident. Nandlall said that he enquired about the reasoning behind the detention after which he called the head of SOCU Senior Superintendent Fazil Karimbaksh and investigating officer Ramana and advised that Clarke be released.
He also spoke with Clarke and informed her of the intervention and offered his apologies as a colleague of the Bar.
“So I thought that this was water under the bridge. But obviously, there is an aggressive agenda being pursued and I am not sure to what end,” Nandlall said in his video statement yesterday.
Nandlall said that Clarke was only detained for a maximum of 15 minutes and was released even before her lawyers got to the SOCU Headquarters. However, Clarke is contending that she was detained for about an hour and prevented from leaving the room while her phone was taken away.
Additionally, her lawyers contended that they were prevented from accessing her for over 15 minutes as well.
Nandlall said that he received a pre-action letter from the attorneys representing Clarke and it demanded $50 million in compensation.
“Now, this young lady would not have spent more than 10 minutes under this alleged police restraint. She was not physically incarcerated in a cell. She was simply requested to move from one part of the building lower flat to the upper flat. Apparently, her cell phone was taken from her and based upon her own statement, she was prevented from leaving the building.
“…while I am in the process of replying to that letter, I am aware of pursuits are being made across the Caribbean to get statements to emanate to condemn the conduct of the police. A protest now is unfolding. So one must begin to ask whether it is that the young lady’s best interest is being pursued or is there another agenda at play. One would have thought that having engaged the Attorney General and requesting compensation as exorbitant and as excessive as that demand is one would have awaited a response. That did not happen,” Nandlall said.
He said that he will be engaging the lawyers to ensure that the issue is resolved amicably.
