THE Tuesday, August 7, 2012 ruling by the Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry is a classic case of the miscarriage of justice in which one could falsely and wrongfully accuse an individual and secure a conviction. The trial for threatening language and assault causing bodily harm which I endured for months has provided me yet again with first-hand and intimate experience of the existence of a devious political opposition and its determination to persecute those who do not favour their cause. The most worrying part is that this kind of political witch-hunting could achieve success.
There are several questionable aspects of this case. Firstly, it is absolutely clear there was an expectation for me to prove my innocence as against the prosecution being able to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While a defendant may wish to rely upon some defence, the burden of proof ought not to be obligatory or onerous on the defendant. To place the burden of proof on the defendant is to violate the presumption of guilt principle. My unsworn statement was as good as any sworn testimony since the law permits me that right before the court.
The credibility of witnesses is important in the consideration of the weight given to any testimony in court. Apart from the complainant himself who is convincingly a well-established fabricator, ASP Chalmers, representing the miscreant few of the police force, was deemed the most compulsive liar with his self-manufactured testimony. It is puzzling that the evidence supporting the claim that my firearm was lodged at Police Headquarters at the time was ignored, even as the prosecution failed to bring any arguments suggesting that I was in possession of an illegal firearm at that time.
There was a failure to acknowledge that the prosecution did not provide evidence to substantiate its claim that I had used either my licensed firearm, or otherwise an illegal weapon to carry out an assault. The medical did not state or no professional pronouncement was made to determine that a firearm was used to carry out the alleged assault and injury.
The fact that the incident occurred in a highly charged political and elections environment should have been looked at to give context to the circumstances under which the allegations were made.
It sets a dangerous precedent by conveying the impression that anyone can easily make an accusation against a licensed firearm holder and cause them to be convicted, even in questionable circumstances and in the absence of strong evidence.
I have also noted the interest shown by AFC/APNU in this matter, which testifies to their witch-hunting exercise as part of the continuation of the Kwame McCoy smear campaign.
The AFC’s rather swift reaction to the ruling highlights its political opportunism and sudden confidence in the judicial system only because the ruling contributes to the furtherance of their agenda.
The AFC leaders themselves are in the midst of serious scandals violating legal and ethical principles. The AFC leaders should lead the example using their own principle and cause the resignation of Nigel Hughes who was accused of tax evasion and Khemraj Ramjattan who is also accused of swindling his client of a property. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ramjattan’s resignations would indeed commence the tide of change the AFC so desires.
It is my resolve to leave no stone unturned in pursuing justice as a means of bringing to account those with sinister political objectives. This case is more a tale of political concoctions, lies and theatrics.
I am in a better position now to empathize with Guyanese brothers and sisters who share similar experiences and suffered the tragedy of the miscarriage of justice. This case should be viewed with alarm, since it contributes to the undermining of public confidence in the judiciary.