The Working People’s Alliance (WPA) says the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue the private charge of racial hostility brought by police corporal Shawnette Bollers against attorney Nirvan Singh is a “wanton abuse of power that sends an ominous signal to the society at large.”
It adds, “It is tantamount to the use of institutional power to condone racism. On a matter that is so socio-politically sensitive and so central to the stability of our country, the DPP has come down (on) the side of the accused rather than the accuser.”
The charge against Singh stated that on March 20th, 2022, at Middle and Cummings streets, he made derogatory and racial remarks to Bollers while she was on duty at his father’s residence, where he also resided.
His father is retired Chancellor Justice Carl Singh.
According to the charge, Singh, by means of words spoken in a public place, willfully excited and or attempted to excite hostility and ill-will against the complainant on the ground of her race as an Afro-Guyanese, by using words directed to her and published by him.
He was charged and placed on $200,000 bail on April 20. When the matter was called for the second time on May 18, Principal Magistrate, Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus informed that DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack had written Chief Magistrate, Ann McLennan on April 27th advising of her decision to discontinue the private criminal charge.
The decision has attracted criticism and the WPA is the latest group to come out against it.
In a statement yesterday, the WPA registered its protest against the decision noting that it is not an “ordinary” accusation and questioned why the police did not bring charges against Singh.
“This is the kind of activism from the DPP’s chambers that potentially rocks confidence in the Justice system. The role of the DPP is not to act as judge and jury as this decision suggests. The role of the DPP is not to stand in the way of justice, but to facilitate justice. At the very least, she should have allowed the accused to have his day in court to defend himself against the accusations. Even if Ms Bollers’ charges appear unsubstantiated, let the courts decide. It is too sensitive a matter to be determined by a single individual,” the WPA said.
In her reasoning for the discontinuation of the charge, the DPP proffered that the charge was not in compliance with Section 2 of the Racial Hostility Act, Chapter 23:01.
The WPA added that the DPP’s discontinuation of the charge denies Bollers an opportunity for justice and equal protection before the law and instead protects Singh’s right.
“…she [Ali-Hack] is in effect saying that the two citizens are not equal before the law. The decision also says that the burden of proof even for bringing a charge of alleged racism rests with the accuser. By raising the bar for bringing charges so high, she in effect facilitates racial abuse,” the WPA argued.
It further stated that Bollers’ civil rights have been violated by the very state that is charged with protecting those rights. WPA also expressed support for Bollers’ decision to seek judicial review of this action by the DPP.
