WE are back to normal, mental life in Guyana; not that I believe Venezuela would have invaded Guyana. I don’t think that is a possibility in the foreseeable future, even if Maduro wins the next five elections. So, Guyana should get back to discussing things, yes, things whose exigency need to be highlighted so changes can come.

Unacceptable and unpleasant occurrences continue to slip under the radar because we don’t have an independent civil society system, a media landscape that is professional and an opposition party that monitors society. All three of these dimensions listed here have an obsession with governmental behaviour and nothing else. Why this is so is because harassment of the government brings publicity and that is what they crave. No publicity comes from criticism of many police stations that do not have telephonic services.

There are many wrongs riveting Guyana but all civil society, the press and the opposition are concerned with is what President Ali is wearing, which word of a minister is insulting, which minister is not listening. No other topic, no other subject-matter interests them.

I learnt a phrase when I was at the University of Toronto during the era of the Cold War. In the International Relation classes some left-wing students would be cynical and joke about the first thing Americans do when they get up in the morning, which is, look under their beds for communists. That phrase powerfully applies to civil society in this land. The first thing they do as they awake is to look under their beds for Ali and Jagdeo.

In this obsession with government, they pay no attention to areas that cry out for justice. Magistrates’ readiness to deny bail is a terrible societal fault that must be confronted. People’s freedom must not be flippantly dealt with. All persons before the court are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Bail is an acceptance of that fact. Bail denial is a denial of freedom. Bail should not apply when the accused is suspected of flight. Bail should be refused if there is suspicion that witnesses could be intimidated.

Please Google my article of Sunday, June 26, 2022 for a description of unreasonable bail denial. It is titled, “I stand alone, time passes, I’m vindicated, but there is no joy.”
In the press recently there were two cases of bail refusal which I strongly disagree with. In one such matter, a bank teller in Linden was charged with an accomplice for fraud. Bail was denied to both of them.

In another case, a prison warden was charged for attempting to smuggle drugs into the prison. Bail was denied. Last week a man was put on bail for rape. These inconsistencies irritate the soul. What goes through the mind of a police prosecutor and a magistrate when the former asks the court not to grant bail and the magistrate concurs?

Both of them know that they are violating the guidelines for the setting of bail. To deny bail is equivalent to a GRA official telling a driver: “I will not issue a licence to you.” It is equivalent to a NIS official telling a pensioner: “I will not accept your pension application.” It is equivalent to a police certifying officer telling a driver: “I will not give you a certificate of fitness.”

In all the three examples above, the person in authority cannot deny the service because it is an entitlement. I believe these three examples are identical to the denial of bail. The prosecutor has to cite a reason for opposing bail and the magistrate has to know that there is a guideline for denying bail.

Years ago, there was an intriguing tale based on facts on Croal Street outside the High Court. When people were unreasonably denied bail in the lower court, there was a man in a parked mini-bus on Croal Street. He was nicknamed, “The Chief.” Your relatives would go to “The Chief” and inform him that a bail application has been made to the High Court.

“The Chief” would make a note, plus you have to give him some real notes and you inform your lawyer about the transaction. “The Chief” had his contact so your relative would get bail. The story of “The Chief” in the mini-bus was open knowledge in Guyana. Many lawyers knew about “The Chief” and his big contact in those days. I really don’t know with the death of “ Chief’s” big contact at the end of 2019 if “The Chief” still carries on his Croal Street escapade.

In a forthcoming column I will look at the guilty plea for murder that was rejected by the state and the convicted men condemned to hang, a decision I support.