Justice Roxanne George ordered that the Police Commissioner Henry Greene present Barry Dataram in her court today.
This follows an application by Dataram’s lawyers Vic Puran and Glenn Hanoman yesterday. Puran had informed her that the acing Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson did not issue the arrest warrant that the Crime Chief had petitioned the court for, adding that they had objected to it being done. Justice George then stated that the police are running out of time in their investigation against Dataram.
Robertson yesterday again deferred ruling on the provisional warrant requested by Crime Chief Seelall Persaud for Dataram, although attorney Anil Nandlall said Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee has signed an Authority to Proceed document in the matter.
Puran once again told the magistrate that she has to act constitutionally because she took an oath to uphold the constitution. He went on to say that the Magistrates’ Court does not have the jurisdiction to interpret the constitution and thus it should be put down for the determination of the High Court.
Nandlall, who represented the prosecution, stated that the Magistrates’ Court should not traverse into territory that it does not have jurisdiction to go into, especially at this stage which “is only to rule on whether or not the provisional warrant will be granted.”
He said that this application was made under Section 13 of the Fugitive Offenders Act and comes under subsection 3 and 4. “What the police are doing is a violation of the separation of powers,” interjected Puran. He said that the Act cited by the Crime Chief offends the doctrine of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.
Nandlall obliged that the magistrate act upon the evidence, which is an indictment issued by the US Government along with an arrest warrant. Saying Rohee has signed an Authority to Proceed document in the matter, he noted that the Minister has received a request from the US Government to return Dataram to that territory. He said that this document emanates from a Superior Court of record from the US and is dually authenticated by relevant officers at the US embassy in Guyana.
Nandlall further stated that Dataram does not have a right to be heard at this stage of the proceeding and that the presence of Puran and Hanoman in court yesterday was impermissible and that they should not be given the opportunity to air their objections and arguments at this point in time.
He said that Puran’s arguments are premature and should be kept for the committal hearing after the Arrest Warrant is issued.
Puran then interjected and stated that he has the authority to voice his arguments at the current stage of the proceeding, since by the ruling of Justice Jainarine Singh the police could not have a man in police custody and then deprive him of a hearing. “No court in Guyana has ever issued an arrest warrant for a person who is already in police custody,” noted Puran, “except if they were misled by the DPP or in these extradition cases where the applicant (the Crime Chief) has sought it and has been successful.”
Puran then told the court that the prosecution presented several documents to her but that only one is authentic. He said that the magistrate could only act on authentic documents but that she may have difficulties in deciphering which is the authentic document.
He stated that the magistrate has to see if the alleged request by the US Government predates the October 2009 Act, and noted that if it does then it falls in Justice Ian Chang’s ruling that his client cannot be extradited to the US.
He said that from what he has seen the document was issued on June 10, 2008 and was received by a Court Clerk.
He also stated that the court should find out if Dataram’s detention is legal.
Nandlall then told the court that the magistrate should not be concerned with the legalities of Dataram’s detention since it is being challenged in the High Court by Puran.
The Magistrate has adjourned the matter to March 4.
