Over five years after she secured a court order, which deemed a move by the government to have her blacklisted unlawful, a young professional is forced to produce the original document as well as a photocopy every time she is about to leave the country; today she is angry that those who failed to correct the unconstitutional act are now crying foul.
It was in September 2011 when Narissa Deokarran attempted to leave the country that she was told by immigration officers that she was not allowed to leave because her name was blacklisted.
“I felt very ashamed, because there were lots of people there. I was shocked,” Deokarran said during an interview with the Sunday Stabroek. She recalled that she was on her way to Trinidad and had already paid for accommodation.
While she has some indication why the then authorities would have taken what she describes as an unconstitutional decision, she said she was never informed that she was being barred from leaving the country or why.
Deokarran pointed out that she has never committed a crime nor has she ever been accused of any and as such there was absolutely no reason for her to be blacklisted.
“I was never taken into a court. I was never told I would have been blacklisted,” she said. “I feel that what was done to me was completely wrong and I had to basically hire a lawyer to [secure] my fundamental rights.”
She was forced to move to the High Court to have the issue resolved after approaching several government officials including former attorney general Anil Nandlall.
On May 7, 2012 then acting Chief Justice Ian Chang ordered that the order or rule nisi of prohibition granted on April 17, 2012 be made absolute. The order is directed to the Commissioner of Police, prohibiting him from preventing Deokarran travelling out of the jurisdiction at all ports of exit on the grounds that such prevention is “capricious, vexatious, malicious, an abuse of power, unconstitutional and unlawful, ultra vires and in excess of jurisdiction.” The order was also directed to the Attorney General and his servants or agents.
But even this does not allow Deokarran to travel freely. A legal source indicated that Deokarran would have had had to initiate contempt proceedings against the Commissioner of Police to ensure that she is allowed to leave freely. She said she was not advised of this.
‘Unconstitutional’
The issue of blacklisting has been in the news recently following a report in the Kaieteur News that the Special Organisation Crime Unit (SOCU) had blacklisted over 200 persons. This has since been debunked by the Guyana Police Force as a fabrication. In fact, the police gave a breakdown of those barred from leaving Guyana during the last ten years, a total of 139 persons.
However, before the police addressed the issue, Nandlall had led the charge against persons being blacklisted, labelling the process unconstitutional.
“Under our criminal justice system and the Constitution, suspicion, at its highest, cannot and does not lawfully equal guilt. This is so because Article 144 of the Constitution ensconces the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right, as well. In consequence, the fact that a person maybe the subject of ongoing criminal investigations or, may even be the prime suspect in a criminal investigation…, cannot form the basis upon which he can be lawfully prevented from leaving the country,” Nandlall had said in a recent press statement.
“Any attempt to do so would constitute an abridgement of his or her constitutional right to leave Guyana,” he said, referring to Article 148 of the Constitution, which guarantees to the individual, the freedom to leave and enter Guyana, as a fundamental right.
Reading that statement from Nandlall made Deokarran angry as she pointed out that she had approached him as attorney general, before moving to the High Court, but got no assistance.
She said that before she approached a lawyer she downloaded a copy of the Constitution and when she wrote her first letter to Nandlall she stated that her constitutional rights were being violated; nothing was done.
She pointed out that ordinary Guyanese are always at a disadvantage and unless you know the right persons or have money “you are nothing… Unless you have contacts, your rights do not matter, there is no justice.”
She added, “Recently, I read in the news about the blacklisting issue and I read the comments by Mr Nandlall and I felt like he was being a complete hypocrite because at that time I personally met him and he did nothing to help. I also wrote to another member of the PPP party at that time who didn’t help me at all.”
She said what was being ventilated in the press now, made it clear that the powers that be then, knew what they did to her was wrong, yet they did nothing to correct it. She believes there are many other such cases.
“When I saw all that is being said I got very angry because of what I endured and I am still enduring…,” the young woman said.
Contacted, Nandlall said he did not recall meeting Deokarran but if he had indeed met her and her issue had to with a scholarship he would have advised her that “her case has nothing to do with the blacklist about which I wrote in my article.” He continued, “Recipients of those scholarships are normally required to sign a contract, which, in consideration for the government granting them that scholarship, binds them to serve in the public sector for a defined period, during which, they are not permitted to leave the jurisdiction of Guyana without the permission of the Public Service Ministry. In those circumstances, the prohibition against leaving the country is contractual, lawful and permitted by the Constitution.”
However, Deokarran made it clear that she was not a bonded trainee and as such there was no need to for her to be prevented from leaving the country. She stated that if the former authorities dispute her account then she was willing to highlight why she believes she was blacklisted and the circumstances surrounding same.
But for now she wants to focus on the unconstitutional act and how those who are now crying foul also took advantage of the ordinary man/woman.
‘Hypocrisy’
“I mean now that these people feel threatened they are highlighting this issue and talking about how unconstitutional it is to blacklist people. So what about the average person whose rights have been trampled on?” she questioned.
“I think it is blatant hypocrisy… that these people feel they can do what they want and when they are affected it’s like they are being victimised. What about all the people who were victimised when the PPP/C was in government?
“Actually I am apolitical. I have no political loyalty. I just want to highlight this issue because I was personally affected. These people are voted in and they should be there to represent you and everybody should matter, not just the politicians, not just Mr Nandlall and the people who have money and power, everyone’s rights should be respected.”
She recalled that after she had written to Nandlall and highlighted her plight, she received a call from his office inviting her to a meeting and at that moment she felt the much needed assistance was at hand.
“When I went to see him, he just listened to what I had to say; he didn’t say anything. He didn’t offer to help me. He just listened to me and then I was told to leave and that was it,” Deokarran said.
However, Nandlall told the Sunday Stabroek that the description of the meeting was not a reflection of his modus operandi and he did not recall such a meeting.
Deokarran said she had meetings with other government officials but she received no assistance and was forced to hire a lawyer. Even that was difficult, as she was unable to afford the sum requested to pursue that matter in court.
She recalled that the Attorney-General’s office was represented by two lawyers who initially requested two weeks from the court to file a response to her affidavit, but at the expiration of that time they had filed no such response.
Justice Chang then made his interim order absolute and according to Deokarran the acting Chief Justice indicated to the state’s attorneys that he wanted no other such case brought before him.
“And that was it. I was not compensated for my ticket. I was not compensated for anything,” the young woman recalled.
“Every time I pass through the airport, I have to leave copies of the order and I have to show the immigration officers the original,” she said, adding that she is often grilled before she is allowed to leave.
As recent as April this year, she was on her way to Suriname using the ferry and she had already passed immigration and was in the duty free section when she heard her name being announced. “I was taken to a room. I was asked why my name was on the blacklist,” she said. “I had to present this order, I had to leave a copy again and I had no copies. I had to look around to have it photocopied and only then was I allowed to travel.”
Deokarran said she had initially decided that she would not take the order with her on the April trip as she was told the last time she exited Guyana through the Cheddi Jagan International Airport that a notation would have been made in the database reflecting that she had an order and was allowed to leave the country.
‘Unfortunate’
Meanwhile, in response to the Guyana Police Force’s statement that it had found no advice from him on the issue of blacklisting while he was Attorney General, Nandlall said it was “quite unfortunate” that the force disputed his claim. “I am also aware that the late Mr Doodnauth Singh, SC, a former attorney general did a similar opinion, a decade prior. Additionally, I recently read an article written by another former attorney general, who wrote… that during his tenure in the mid-90s, he also advised the then Crime Chief about the unconstitutionality of this infamous blacklist. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police is not standing on sure grounds on this issue.”
According to the police release, records checked at the Office of the CoP revealed that while the force was represented by the Attorney General in litigation brought by persons placed on the blacklist, “no record of any opinion or instruction from the Attorney General to the police was found.”
Additionally, it said, the current CoP would have served as Crime Chief, the person who maintains the blacklist, from 2007 until his appointment as Commissioner in 2014. “He is unaware of any opinion or instruction from the Attorney General regarding the blacklist,” the police statement said.
