I HAVE a serious problem when I consider the way in which justice is dispensed in Guyana today. I came to this conclusion after reading a Kaieteur News article captioned: “High Court deems stop and search an abuse of power”. In that article, then lawyer Navindra Singh was awarded $3M for what he claims is an abuse of power by the police.

Details of that case say that the plaintiff, Navindra Singh, was driving along Charlotte Street in the city when he noticed his engine light flashing, which indicated that something had malfunctioned on his vehicle.

He stopped in the roadway possibly to determine the cause of the malfunction and later to call his mechanic. But according to him, before he could get to the bottom of the problem two policemen turned up informing him that he was obstructing the free flow of traffic and he needs to clear the way.

By his own testimony, he refused to heed the peace officers command and proceeded to another street where he was confronted by the same officers who reminded him of his traffic infraction as well as they wanted to check his vehicle.

Again Singh disregarded the officer’s command and instead proceeded in a back and forth verbal engagement. At this point we are not privy to what was actually said by the plaintiff, or what was spoken by the officers in this unruly display but, suffice it to say that there was not anything of decency that came from either party. He mentioned also that the other officer bore down a gun in his face in the ensuing melee.
What happened next is a pushing and shoving as Singh was bundled out of his vehicle and arrested. His vehicle was searched and he was later asked to report to the Brickdam Police Station. At the station he was asked to give a statement as to the events as it took place on May 9, 2006 and  again he refused to give a statement. Singh’s car was detained by the police thereafter. I would not venture to delve any further in this nonsensical matter but would stop here to ask a few questions then sum up.
Singh’s case against the officers and the Attorney General speaks of “an assault, malicious arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution”. Now, it is my turn to question these allegations that Singh asserts in his High Court case.
Firstly, where is the assault, malicious arrest and false prosecution? Here we have a “bad boy attorney” who refused to heed a peace officer’s command and was promptly arrested. Assault no, prompt police action, yes, maybe a little harsh I would say but overall very good police action.
A police officer does not have to beg someone or use the word please when pulling over a person who has committed an offence. He does not have to answer the offender’s questions or engage in a back and forth discussion or argument?
The offender needs to simply comply with the orders given. As in this case, the officers do not have to ask the offender who are you – a lawyer, a politician or what we call a high-society official? There is certainly no negotiation here. No, not at all, you break the law, and Mr Singh knows that fully well and you have to face prosecution. A further violation of the law in this case is his questioning of the officers’ authority; this is outrageous! I think the officers exhibited great patience with Singh far beyond that which was necessary. Then if we are to go by his reasoning no offender, traffic or otherwise, should be asked to pull over by the police that goes for Singh or, as we would say, for the so called ruff uncouth youth from Albouystown.
The same that applies for a “nobody criminal” of Tiger Bay the same goes for Navindra Singh.
The point I am making is whatever the status, race, religion or political affiliation, all are equal under the law; none is exempt. There might have been excesses on both sides for which I am certain but to treat Singh any different from a commoner is simply outrageous. It follows because he is a lawyer he should be selected for special treatment. This is what it boils down to and there is no way society should tolerate this nonsense. The moment we entertain this kind of logic society begins to degenerate into justice for the rich or those with status and no justice at all for the poor and downtrodden, something that is so obvious in this case.
It also means that I, Neil Adams, is a nobody, can be pulled over and even shot at by the police and this is considered “normal” but for Singh it constitutes an assault and malicious prosecution. Preposterous!
I close by relating a story that took place last August. Coming from Berbice in a fast-moving hire car we were stopped by a traffic cop in the vicinity of the Fort Wellington Police Station and asked to pull over to the shoulder of the road. Immediately there were grumbles and expletives from the occupants of the vehicle, some of which run like this “the f..ing police why deh don’t go look for the criminals…only harassing innocent people.” Things got really heated when the officer requested that all bags be opened for a routine check when one lady shouted out “I ain’t a criminal and I ain’t opening meh bag for no police  …  y’all know how people don’t like police.”
To that refusal the police simply responded: “Then you would be arrested and charged maam.” She defiantly replied “for what” and the officer said, “for obstructing a peace officer from carrying out his duties.” Now, the officer did not have to explain all of that to the lady but he did with all the graces of a good officer. And whether he was intimidated by that woman’s statement that “people don’t like police” would you believe that lady’s bag was not searched. The officer after searching our bags only shook his head in disgust at the lady and told us to proceed. This story bears all the imprints of Singh’s case. The point is you might not like the police but we have to respect them.
So for behaving badly, Justice Ramlall rewarded Singh with a $3M in judgement. Fantastic!
In my book both parties are guilty of excesses, both are guilty of bad behaviour; the police for pointing a gun in his face (if this is indeed the case) because beat duty cops are required to carry arms. But my most scathing rebuke is reserved for the ‘bad boy attorney’ who claims to “fear for his life” with all those blunt refusals to obey an officer I beg to differ.
Mr. Singh was just frustrated with a malfunctioning vehicle that day so he vented his frustrations on the officers who were simply doing their jobs. So, if any, both parties should be awarded which brings us to an awash in this case. To reward Singh is certainly adding to the mess that is Guyana’s justice system.
What has to happen is the Attorney General must file an appeal to bring some sensibilities to this horrendous “cockeyed” form of justice. I would further ask for police vehicles to be installed with dash board cameras and recorders, the likes of which we see in the USA so that this and other matters can be dealt with in the best way possible.

NEIL ADAMS