Having already cleared customs and immigration at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, APNU+AFC Member of Parliament (MP) David Patterson was on Tuesday night blocked from boarding a flight to attend a meeting with the US Black Congressional Caucus in Washington, despite having clearance from a court to travel.
Patterson related that he was subsequently told that his name was on a no-fly list, despite the fact that in Guyana there is no such list, and for a person to be prohibited from travelling, a court has to grant that action, on direct request by the police or through bail hearings.
The Guyana Police Force (GPF) later issued an apology saying that it mistakenly left the former Minister of Public Infrastructure’s name on this country’s no-fly list.
Patterson is now preparing litigation against the Guyana Police Force, as he lamented that not only was he embarrassed, but was unable to deliver his address as well as participate in important activities in Washington, along with the monies lost that was spent on hotel and flights.
“I do not accept the GPF’s apology nor do I believe them. The absurdity of the reason! If you cannot put someone on a list unless you went to Court, how is it possible that their name is there when you did not go? This is just total drivel,” an upset Patterson told Stabroek News.
Recounting the ordeal that he believes was political in nature, he related that he had already checked in for his American Airlines flight to New York, cleared immigration and was reading, as he awaited boarding.
“The flight was scheduled to leave around 11:30pm for New York and then I had a connection to Washington. I was supposed to address the congressional Black Caucus and was prepared. Figured I would check into my hotel and leave for there, but this is what happened,” Patterson said.
“I checked-in, went through customs checks and was sitting in the departure lounge reading. A young officer came to me and said, ‘Sir there is an issue at immigration and I am afraid you are not supposed to fly’. I asked what did he mean and he said I would have to talk to his supervisor which I left to do,” he added.
The MP said that he spoke to the supervisor of the young man and at this point she repeated that he won’t be allowed to travel because of the instructions in the system. Patterson said that he first tried explaining that the issue of him being able to fly had been dealt with by the Court and that he was allowed unrestricted travel. When the woman remained adamant that he could not travel, he immediately contacted his friend and attorney, Nigel Hughes who spoke with the woman, who had then sought advice from her supervisor.
“They said you would have to contact higher up. They left and they said that they tried to no avail. At around 10:47pm the flight started boarding and they said I could not board. I decided to not press the issue further, but told them that I would not be surprised if they at immigration get blamed…,” he said while emphasizing his belief that the motive was political.
Patterson said that he left for home, with the resolve that he would take court action based on the fact that he had been granted permission to travel during the hearing of a minor court matter currently before the courts. According to the case, he had urinated in public and was charged for exposing his genitals.
“Last year, there was a ruling against having a no-fly or blacklist. We specifically had asked the court, in my case, about my ability to travel and I was granted permission. Why this?” he questioned.
The case he was referring to is the one in which Senior Superintendent of Police Marcelene Washington, took her case to the High Court in order to travel for medical reasons, as she had been prohibited from leaving. She had been charged with several counts of conspiracy to commit a felony.
No written law
In a ruling delivered on December 28 last year, Justice Navindra Singh ruled that there was no written law in Guyana which authorises the Guyana Police Force to limit the movement of persons out of Guyana solely because they have been charged with an indictable offence and placed on bail.
In fact, the Judge ruled that the only condition attached to the grant of bail is the future appearance of the person bailed; while stating that if the court granting bail determines that conditions, such as restricting a person’s movement out of the jurisdiction, are needed, those are conditions to be attached to the grant of bail.
Justice Singh asserted that “it is clear that the names of persons charged with an indictable offence are placed on a list, whether it is called a ‘blacklist’ or an ‘administrative list’ is wholly irrelevant.”
Moreover, he said it is also clear that by creating such a list, the Guyana Police Force has determined that the law authorises it to limit the movement of such persons solely because they have been charged with indictable offences.
“No such authority is reposed in the Guyana Police Force under any written law in Guyana,” the Judge informed in his ruling; adding that the Respondents had clearly misdirected themselves with respect to their contention that Article 139 (1) of the Constitution restricts the Applicant’s right to travel pursuant to a bail order made by the Court.
This Article he said, “does not restrict the movement of an individual who has been granted bail by a Court of Law.”
Section 11 of the Bail Act, he said, makes it very clear that conditions, including conditions restricting a bailed person’s ability to travel, “may be imposed by the Court granting bail.”
“Logically if such conditions are not imposed by the Court, then they will not exist,” the Judge asserted; before going on to state that “the Guyana Police Force cannot restrict the movement of any person around or out of Guyana unless such restriction is provided for in the Laws of Guyana or is pursuant to an Order of Court.”
Because of international agreements with the international crime police organisation – Interpol, persons on that watchlist can be barred here from travelling and arrested.
Patterson’s attorney, Nigel Hughes, issued a statement as he signalled his intention to move to the court to sue.
“On the evening of Tuesday 26th September, 2023, David Patterson MP went to the Cheddi Jagan International Airport for the purposes of travelling to the United States to deliver a presentation on Guyana to the Black Congressional Caucus on Capitol Hill. After Mr. Patterson had cleared customs and immigration, he was approached by immigration officers who informed him that he was not permitted to travel,” the statement said.
“Mr. Patterson contacted his attorneys, Hughes, Fields and Stoby, who informed him that the magistrate had expressly permitted him to travel for business and professional reasons when he was recently charged, provided he attended the court hearing either virtually or in person. The attorneys-at-law then engaged the immigration officers and inquired whether they were in possession of any order of Court restraining Mr. Patterson from travelling. They responded indicating that they did not have any such order neither were they aware of any such order but there was “something in the system” which said Mr. Patterson could not travel,” the statement added.
The statement related most of what Patterson told this newspaper as it pointed out that when Patterson’s attorney spoke with the immigration personnel, they tried contacting both the Head and Deputy Head of Immigration but said they were unreachable.
“The attorneys invited the Officers to engage the Head of immigration immediately as Mr. Patterson’s constitutional right to travel would be violated if he was prevented from travelling. The officers asked that the Attorneys call back in five minutes. On the return call the Attorneys were informed that they were unable to contact the Head or Deputy Head of immigration and in the light of the fact that there was “something in the system” and Mr. Patterson would not be permitted to leave the country,” the statement said.
“Mr. Patterson was scheduled to deliver presentations today and tomorrow to the Congressional Black Caucus on Capitol Hill. Mr. Patterson has instructed that constitutional proceedings for damages be commenced against the State,” it noted.
The Guyana Police Force issued an apology saying that it was at the time conducting an internal investigation into the matter.
“The Guyana Police Force would like to apologise to Member of Parliament Mr David Patterson, whose name inadvertently remained on an Immigration Department’s watchlist. Mr Patterson’s name was placed on the watchlist in July 2023 during an ongoing investigation by the Police into accusation of indecent exposure. The Guyana Police Force has internal SOPs to deal with such issues, and a full probe is underway by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) as to why Mr Patterson’s name was not removed earlier from the list. Mr Patterson’s name has since been removed from the watchlist,” the GPF apology stated.
