Dear Editor,
I am grateful that you published my letter in SN on June 29, 2023. CANU has since issued a press release, excerpts of which were published in Friday’s Stabroek News. My client maintains that where she resides at Lot 156 Tabatinga, Lethem, the yard of this property is unfenced, not fenced as CANU claims.
Secondly, it is outright misleading that my client Ms. Jeffreys, was not placed in the lockups as she is pregnant. The fact is there are no lockups at the Lethem Police Station presently, as the entire Police Station and lockups are under repair. Unless the CANU had intended to lock up my client in some secret dungeon, it remains a mystery as to where she would have been taken to and kept.
My client Ms. Jeffreys confirmed to me that indeed she was unwell and indicated to a female Police Officer at the Lethem Police Station that her foot was swollen, her back was paining and generally not feeling well, as a result of having to sit all day and night time on a hard wooden bench.
My client also indicated that it was a kind female Police Officer who give her a plastic chair to sit on and where she spent the entire night.
Two of the three nights that she spent at the Lethem Police Station, she was given a sponge mattress to sleep on, notwithstanding her very advanced pregnancy and medical condition. She should have been released and asked to report at the Lethem Police Station every day.
CANU in its release said amongst other things that it remains compliant with the law of Guyana. This is a laughable statement that flies in the face of the conduct and behaviour of the ranks of CANU who most recently stole a quantity of diamonds from a Surinamese national, some of which were ingested by a CANU rank and the other remains unaccounted for.
My colleague Attorney-at-Law, Glen Hanoman shared with me some observations after the publication of my letter in your newspaper, and he points out that CANU is perhaps the only law enforcement agency that does not derive its existence from an Act of Parliament, designed specifically to provide for the composition, powers, duties, appointments and termination of employment of its members.
There are no attendant regulations or standing orders designed for CANU and the organisational structure for CANU remains a mystery to members of the public and legal practitioners alike.
Most alarming is that there is no known mechanism for complaints to be made against officers of CANU for misconduct, unlike complaints possible against members of the Guyana Police Force through the Police Complaints Authority and the Office of Professional Responsibility.
Complaints made against officers of CANU at Police Stations and open Court are generally sidelined.
The past and present composition of CANU raises questions about the criteria used to hire its members.
Finally, I wish to point out that there is no automatic right of CANU to detain a person for 72 hours. Article 139 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana spells out the conditions under which a person may be detained. And if such a person is not brought before a competent court of law within 72 hours the Police may apply to the High Court for an extension of time to keep such a person in custody.
This was never done by CANU and therefore CANU violated a fundamental right of my client guaranteed under our Constitution. Moreover, the fact that my client was released on her own recognisance and told to report to the Lethem Police Station several days from now speaks for itself, that is, CANU did not have any evidence in the first place to detain her for 72 hours.
My client is currently at home resting and her health being monitored.
It is high time that this organisation be brought under the microscope.
Yours sincerely,
Jerome Khan