Prosecutor not ready in Sharma obstruction of justice case

The reinstitution of the joint charge of attempting to obstruct the course of justice against Chandra Narine Sharma and two of his employees did not materialise yesterday at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court since the prosecution has not received advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on how to proceed.

Police Prosecutor Inspector Stephen Telford asked for the matter to be adjourned to another date since he was not in possession of advice from the DPP.  The matter next comes up on June 9 in Court One.

Attorney Nigel Hughes representing Sharma said that given the high profile of the matter, it was expected that the prosecution would have already had their file in order.  He contended that this failure is another in the set of acts which seek to embarrass and humiliate his client.

Hughes also noted the absence of the investigating ranks in the courtroom.  He added that the other matters in Court Six  and Ten  have suffered the same fate as  prosecutors did not have their files on the matter.

In response, Telford said that it is the DPP who is in charge of all prosecution matters and he cannot proceed without the requisite advice.
On April 26, Sharma was placed on $100,000 bail when the charge was read to him.  On that occasion the prosecutor had indicated to the court that they expected to withdraw the charge against him and reinstitute a joint charge with his two employees, Doodnauth Sharma and Raywattie Ramsaywack who have been charged with a similar offence.

All three are charged separately with wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice by removing two of the girls at the centre of the allegations against Sharma from their known address and taking them to a house at 123 Golden Grove, East Bank Demerara in order to prevent them from being questioned by the police in relation to the allegations.

The case of CNS cameraman, Tyrone Ali, Gizmos and Gadgets owner Ravi Mangar and his security guard, Mark Reid who were charged with attempting to obstruct the course of justice is expected to come up on June 4 in Court Ten.