-cites political directives, breach of natural justice
Amid the disclosure that charges have been recommended in a SOCU probe of him, Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus yesterday moved to the court against the Attorney General, the Top Cop and others, arguing that he was being victimized in the ongoing investigation and being denied services including a restriction on his accounts.
An application lodged for Brutus also alleges a role for Cabinet in his being sent on leave and recounted an appearance in court where he was threatened with a wanted bulletin if he did not show up at the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) which is spearheading the probe. The affidavit also accused senior government officials of interference in the matter in what will likely create further turmoil in the Guyana Police Force (GPF).
Brutus is seeking a number of declarations from the court including that the acting Commissioner of Police acted ultra vires on July 4th by transferring him from the position of Deputy Commissioner due to “political directives and improper administrative procedures”.
Also being sought by Brutus is a declaration that Cabinet acted ultra vires on July 11 when it instructed the acting Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken to send him on annual leave due to allegations of involvement in financial crimes.
Brutus is seeking a declaration that the rules of natural justice were violated as he was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond.
He further seeks a declaration that the Minister of Home Affairs acted ultra vires when he dispatched a letter to the acting Commissioner of Police dated August 21, 2024 for Brutus to proceed on leave on August 22.
Brutus is also seeking a declaration that the Police Service Commission also acted ultra vires in sending a letter to the acting Commissioner of Police dated August 29th, 2024 that said that Brutus had proceeded on leave with effect from August 22, 2024.
A declaration is also being sought that SOCU behaved ultra vires in the investigation “through unlawful and premature restraining of the Applicant’s and his family bank accounts, the manipulation of evidence, intimidation and harassment of witnesses and unlawful leaking of information to the media and social media”.
Brutus further wants declarations that the investigation is inherently biased and irreparably tainted due to overwhelming and undue publicity which has prejudiced public perception.
He then sought orders associated with the various declarations prayed for.
The application before the court said that Brutus had been told by the acting Police Commissioner that his July 4, 2024 transfer from the post of Deputy Commissioner ‘Administration’ to Head of the Special Branch was to enable Assistant Commissioner Ravindradat Budhram to gain experience in police administration.
The application said that Brutus attended a briefing on July 11 about the Special Branch with Hicken at which point the acting Police Commissioner received a cellular call after which he told Brutus that he (Hicken) had been summoned to Cabinet and instructing Brutus to remain until he returned.
Upon Hicken’s return, Brutus was notified that Cabinet instructed him that Brutus must proceed on leave due to the allegation of his involvement in financial crimes. The application said that Hicken instructed Brutus to apply immediately for annual leave which Brutus did after initially objecting. The application noted that on the very day – July 11 – Hicken denied publicly that any investigation was underway in relation to Brutus.
The application further said that political interference was evident at a court hearing before Justice Nicole Pierre on August 21 when the Attorney General said that if Brutus did not report to SOCU he would cause a wanted bulletin to be issued. Further, at a court hearing on September 19, the application said that the Attorney General allegedly stated that he would cause SOCU to widen the investigation “to investigate each witness that gave (a) statement on my behalf evidencing monetary gifts”.
The application contended that the Government of Guyana “has embarked on a system of harassment of the applicant by obstructing lawful access to services including the Central Housing and Planning Authority, Guyana Geology and Mines Commission and Environmental Protection Agency”.
It was contended in the application that the allegations and investigation are intended to prevent Brutus’ elevation in the force.
The application also accused SOCU of unlawful acts in restraining Brutus’ accounts and said no order was served on him and he only found out when he attempted to do a wire transfer.
The attorneys appearing for Brutus are Earl Daniels, Yuborn Allicock and Domnick Bess.
Following a Stabroek News report, SOCU yesterday said that dozens of charges have been recommended in an expanded probe of Brutus and the matter is now with the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
SOCU’s statement came following a report in yesterday’s Stabroek News that no charges had been recommended in its probe based on correspondence seen by this newspaper dated June 12 between SOCU and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). SOCU was given an opportunity on Tuesday to comment on the report but no one was available to do so. On the appearance of the news item in yesterday’s edition SOCU responded with the announcement of an expanded probe.
SOCU’s statement said that: “Earlier this year, SOCU launched an investigation into certain activities of Assistant Commissioner Brutus and at the end of that investigation, based on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no criminal charges were recommended.
“Subsequently, based on critical information received by SOCU from the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), a new and more expansive investigation was conducted by SOCU.
“That investigation was concluded on 2024-10-01, and all the relevant files were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for review, advice and further action.
“In respect of this latter expansive investigation, SOCU recommended dozens of charges. SOCU now awaits the legal advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions”.
The police force had not spoken publicly of the twists and turns in the investigation as alleged by the application yesterday on behalf of Brutus. The investigation of Brutus over money laundering stemmed from large deposits to his account which he said represented wedding gifts from November last year, Christmas gifts and incentives related to police work
