Attorney at Law Nigel Hughes has written to the government requesting the sum of $25m in damages for the violation of his client, David Patterson’s constitutional right of freedom to travel.
Hughes in a letter sent to Attorney General Anil Nandlall on October 10th, 2023 said that based on his client’s consultation with him, the former public works minister on the 26th day of September 2023 was denied his fundamental right to travel out of Guyana.
The letter which was seen by Stabroek News said “We are instructed that it was a matter of public record that our client was travelling on official business in his capacity as a member of the National Assembly to meet with and address members of the congress of the United States”.
“The actions of the Chief Immigration Officer were intended to and did frustrate the official visit and presentations of our client”.
It added: “We are instructed that given the gravity of the intentional violation of our client’s protected right, the occasion which he missed as a result of the actions of the Chief Immigration Officer and the clear flouting of the order of Magistrate (Leron) Daly our client is entitled to substantial damages.
“We are further instructed that in the light of the expressed admission of the Chief Immigration Officer that the immigration officers had breached our client’s protected and guaranteed constitutional right to travel out of Guyana as provided in Article 148 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guy-ana our client is entitled to vindicatory damages”.
Hughes said that failure to respond in five days would lead to judicial proceedings. There has so far been no response from the AG’s Chambers, according to Hughes.
Having already cleared customs and immigration at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, APNU+AFC Member of Parliament Patterson was blocked on September 26th from boarding a flight to attend a meeting with the US Black Congressional Caucus in Washington.
The Guyana Police Force subsequently issued an apology saying that it mistakenly left the former Minister of Public Infrastructure’s name on this country’s no-fly list.
Against this background Patterson signalled 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. Monies spent on accommodation and flights were also lost.
“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,” Patterson had 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.
Patterson eventually attended the congress in Washington following the GPF’s apology.
No written law
On December 28 last year, Justice Navindra Singh ruled that there was no written law in Guyana which authorizes 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 (being placed) 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 authorizes 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.”
