SUPREME Court Judge, Navindra Singh has ruled that the Guyana Police Force (GPF) does not have the authority to blacklist persons from leaving the jurisdiction.
This landmark ruling stemmed from the constitutional challenge filed at the High Court by Police Finance Officer, Woman Senior Superintendent (ag) Marcelene Washington, who is currently before the court on conspiracy charges for allegedly defrauding the State by falsifying $5.1M in food vouchers. The charges were indictable.
She was represented by Dexter Todd and associates in the challenge filed against the Attorney General, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police.
Washington sought a declaration that her deprivation of the freedom of movement by the GPF breached her constitutional right.
Additionally, she sought an administrative order of Mandamus directed to the Commissioner of Police compelling him to remove her name from the blacklist at all ports of exit.
She added that the inclusion of her name on such a list is “capricious, vexations, malicious, abuse of power, unconstitutional, unlawful, ultra vires and in excess of jurisdiction.”
In her court affidavit, Washington argued that she is a naturalised citizen of the United States of America and has to travel every six months to maintain her citizenship.
She explained that she was charged in June 2021, and no court order was made to restrict her leaving the jurisdiction since she did not pose a flight risk.
However, Williams said she later received a letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, through the Office of the Commissioner indicating that since she was criminally charged, she is now blacklisted from travelling beyond Guyana’s borders.
Justice Singh, in his ruling, found that the GPF cannot restrict the movement of any person around or out of Guyana unless such restriction is provided for in the laws of Guyana or pursuant to an Order of the Court.
In fact, he added that since the filing of these proceedings, the Bail Act of 2022 was passed and assented to and the provisions therein, particularly section 11, are most instructive.
Section 11 makes it very clear that conditions, including conditions restricting a bailed person’s ability to travel, may be imposed by the Court granting bail.
The respondents in the case had denied that Washington is “blacklisted” from travelling beyond the borders of Guyana, but rather, asserted that the Immigration Department of the GPF would formulate an “administrative list” of all persons charged with an indictable offence.
They contended that this is done as a protocol and guidance to the Immigration Department and if such persons attempt to travel at border points, those persons are usually advised to seek the permission of the Court.
Justice Singh, however, found that it was clear that the names of persons charged with an indictable offence are placed on a list; whether it is called a “blacklist”, or an “administrative list” is wholly irrelevant.
Additionally, the judge said by creating such a list, the GPF and/or the respondents have determined that the law authorises them to limit the movement of such persons solely because they have been charged with indictable offences.
And, so, the judge made it clear that no such authority is reposed in the Guyana Police Force under any written law of Guyana, and they woefully misconstrued themselves.
