Office of the President (OP) communications coordinator Kwame McCoy yesterday said that he plans to appeal his recent assault conviction as he views the outcome of the case as a “classic case of the miscarriage of justice.”
McCoy told Stabroek News yesterday that there is a lot wrong with the way in which he was convicted of the offences, which stemmed from a row over his removing election campaign posters on October 25, last year.
On Tuesday, McCoy was convicted of assaulting and threatening Clifton Stewart, at the end of a trial at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. The case against him was that during an argument on D’Urban Street, Lodge over him removing A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) posters, he threatened Stewart and hit him over the head with a gun. He was ordered to pay $70,000 in fines or face jail time.
“If you look at the case itself, in which one could make an allegation wrongfully and falsely and then secure a conviction, then it means that something is seriously wrong,” he said, while also calling on opposition party AFC to do some housecleaning instead of issuing calls for him to be removed from his post at OP and on the Rights of the Child Commission.
Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, when approached yesterday about how OP intended to treat the situation, said that McCoy had prepared a statement for the consideration of both the public and the administration at OP.
Luncheon, however, stressed that OP is not taking any action against McCoy in relation to his outstanding court matters or the convictions he recently suffered.
Later, in a press release, McCoy said that the trial has provided him with “first-hand and intimate” experience of the political opposition’s determination to persecute those who do not favour their cause.
“The most worrying part is that this kind of political witch-hunting could achieve success,” he said, while saying the interest in the case from AFC and APNU testifies “to their witch-hunting exercise as part of the continuation of the Kwame McCoy smear campaign.”
According to him, there were several questionable aspects of the case, including the expectation for him to prove his innocence as against the prosecution being able to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“While a defendant may wish to rely upon some defence, the burden of proof ought not to be obligatory or onerous on the defendant,” he said, adding that his unsworn statement was as good as any sworn testimony since the law permits him that right before the court.
He also questioned the credibility of the witnesses, accusing the complainant of being a fabricator and a policeman whom he identified as a “compulsive liar with self manufacturing testimony.”
McCoy noted that it is puzzling that the evidence supporting the claim that my firearm was lodged at Police Headquarters at the time was ignored even as the prosecution failed to bring any arguments suggesting that he was in possession of an illegal firearm at that time.
“There was a failure to acknowledge that the prosecution did not provide evidence to substantiate its claim that I had used either my [licensed] firearm or an illegal weapon to carry out an assault,” he said, adding that Stewart’s medical certificate did not determine that a firearm was used to carry out the alleged assault and injury nor was there any professional pronouncement to this end.
McCoy also said that the fact that the incident occurred in a highly charged political and elections environment should have been looked at to “give context” to the circumstances under which the allegations were made.
“It sets a dangerous precedent by conveying the impression that anyone can easily make an accusation against a licensed firearm holder and cause them to be convicted, even in questionable circumstances and in the absence of strong evidence,” he said.
McCoy added that the AFC’s swift reaction to the ruling highlighted its political opportunism and sudden confidence in the judicial system “only because the ruling contributes to the furtherance of their agenda.” However, he said he has resolved to leave no stone unturned in pursuing justice as a means of bringing to account “those with sinister political objectives.”
After McCoy voiced his concerns when the ruling was handed down, Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry had told him that he was “free to challenge and contest” the decision at a higher forum if he so desired.
McCoy still faces another charge which alleges assault on Natalia Ross and that matter has been fixed for September 19 for trial. The prosecution has since been ordered by the court to summon its witnesses for that date.
