RUSSIAN-trained lawyer and former Presidential Advisor, Ramon Gaskin has filed court documents challenging the legality of the Act governing the State Asset Recovery Agency (SARA).

Court documents filed in the Supreme Court before Chief Justice Roxanne Wiltshire Thursday contend that the recently passed legislation is in direct conflict with several elements of the Constitution and its challenger is seeking to have the entire Act scrapped.

Christopher Ram and Davindra Kissoon are lead attorneys in the matter. Kissoon told the Guyana Chronicle Friday that the SARA legislation is being challenged because it is “unconstitutional”. He said the new law interferes with the legal professional privilege, it gives the director of SARA “impermissible” powers, reverses the evidential burden of proof, interferes with citizens right to privacy and the violation of separation of powers among several other claims.

Kissoon said there are sections of the SARA legislation that gives the director of the agency the power to appoint persons as police and customs officials, while the agency has the power to cease peoples’ items ex-parte or without them having a chance to defend themselves. Gaskin told the newspaper that in his perusal of the SARA legislation he found as many as 80 sections and subsections that violate the Constitution including Articles 142, 144, 146, 212, 216 among several others.

Gaskin said that Article 142 of the Constitution which speaks to the protection of citizens from depravation of property states that, “No property of any description shall be compulsory taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsory acquired, except by or under the authority of a written law.” At Section 29 of the SARA law, Gaskin said it claims contrary, that a restraining order could be made on an ex-parte application to a judge in chambers, and it could contain provisions, conditions and restrictions laid out by the court; in the absence of the affected party.

Gaskin said he is concerned that the SARA law speaks to a fund where 25 percent of sums garnered from the seizure of assets is placed. According to the Laws of Guyana, all monies belonging to the state must go into the Consolidated Fund. This section, Gaskin claimed, leaves space for a “slush fund”.

The lawyer took further issue with Section 9 (1) of the SARA legislation. It says that the SARA director can request the finance minister to instruct the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), “to designate the director and other named officers of SARA as persons having the powers of a revenue and customers officer.” Likewise, the SARA director can request that the public security minister instruct the Commissioner of Police, “to designate the director and other named officers of SARA as persons having the powers of a police officer and an immigration officer.”

Gaskin contended that legislation dealing with money laundering and asset recovery, for example, already existed. Outside of that, he said that the SARA law is encroaching on the country’s substantive laws. “An ordinary law passed by Parliament cannot disrupt the entire Constitution,” Gaskin charged.

The SARA Bill was passed in April amidst heated debate, and the eventual walk out by the opposition side of the House who wanted the bill repealed or sent to special select committee. SARA was developed, “… in consonance with the United Nations 2003 Convention against Corruption and signed on to by the previous administration. Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall had said that the SARA law brought much fear and apprehension to the business community. But the government had stated at the time that it was only concerned with recovering state asset stolen by what was described as an “extremely corrupt” outgoing People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government and friends. Gaskin’s matter against the state is set for August 3. Legal Affairs Minister and Attorney General Basil Williams was named the number defendant.