Magistrate Tejnarine Ramroop yesterday dismissed the case against forty persons who were charged for “as-sembling in a public way for disorderly purpose” when it was called at the Fort Wellington Court.
It is alleged that on January 28 at Bath Settlement, West Berbice Surujpaul Kowchai, Kennrick Duggin, Deochan Manroop, Sooklall Seelall and Sarju Rampersaud among others, assembled for disorderly purposes and did not disperse or move away when requested by Superintendent of Police, Balram Persaud.
After heated submissions by attorneys-at-law, Anil Nandlall, Jailall Kissoon and police prosecutor, Inspector Fazil Karimbaksh, the magistrate dismissed the case on the grounds that charge was bad in law and informed the defendants that they were free to go.
The case was first heard at the Blairmont Court on Monday and following arguments by attorneys-at-law, Nandlall, Kissoon and Khemraj Ramjattan the defendants were sent on their own bail.
Sergeant Donna Grant-Fraser who prosecuted in that instance had requested an adjournment to reply and for the persons to be placed on reasonable bail.
The defendants, comprising mainly cane-harvesters attached to the Blairmont Estate, had been off the job ever since the protest and had not planned to return until the charges were dropped. Yesterday, the overjoyed workers told Stabroek News that they would commence harvesting from today.
Nandlall submitted that the summons was not signed by the magistrate and that the charges were bad in law. He urged the magistrate to take into account that the defendants had assembled to act in solidarity with relatives of the 11 Lusignan residents who were massacred.
He argued that the assembly was not unlawful and that the defendants were not in a procession for which permission has to be granted.
He told the court too to take into account that 95% of the persons are gainfully employed at Guysuco and other places and that sugar accounts for a large percentage of the Gross Domestic Product.
He said too that a lot of time is wasted for the defendants to attend court and that the economic consequences would be drastic. The lawyer observed that even though the charges were made under Persaud’s name, he was absent for both hearings and wondered what would have happened if he [Nandlall] was prepared to commence.
He noted that Persaud has “seen it fit to institute the charges but has not seen it fit to at least pay respect to the proceedings of the court.” He said no person has reported to the police or any other relevant authority that they were assaulted or that their property was damaged by the defendants.
Kissoon’s arguments were based on reports that the defendants were arrested in their yards, streets and shops and locked up in a cramped cell. He said the government had declared a day of mourning for the dead but one day was not enough. He said people had gathered spontaneously to mourn but the police fired teargas at them and shot them with pellets.
Attorney-at-law, Perry Gossai who also entered an appearance agreed that the charges were bad in law and said no statute can amend what is bad to make it good. He said the charges should have read that the defendants assembled with other persons.
The prosecutor opposed the arguments by the defence and said evidence would have to be taken. In response to the submissions made about the court not signing the summons, Karimbaksh said that is “no problem.” He said the summons could be signed either before or after the charges are read.
Karimbaksh also stated that while the defendants had a right to protest they did not have to block the road and others from traversing. He said too that the law makes provision for the charge to be amended and made an application for the words “assembled with others” to be added.
But the magistrate overruled the application on the grounds that the amendment would prejudice the defendants.
Before dismissing the case, Magistrate Ramroop said he has taken into consideration the social circumstances of the protest and the economic situation, noting that this is crop-time for the sugar industry.
He said too that he was “very mindful of disposing with the matter to allow the cane cutters to continue with their duties.” He stressed that the defendants may have assembled without thinking how it is done and warned that they should seek advice if they want to protest in future.
