Declaring that it is “apolitical,” “professional” and operates within the confines of the law, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in a statement has sought to rebuff what it says are allegations published “in the media and otherwise that have no basis in law.”
Over the last few days, the office has come into sharp focus with its Director, Shalimar Ali-Hack, being faced with increasing criticisms for initially providing no reasons for her decision to discontinue the private criminal charge of racial hostility filed by police corporal Shawnette Bollers against attorney Nirvan Singh.
On Friday last she would then say that evidence for the charge upon which Singh had already been arraigned and placed before a Court, was not consistent with the section of the Racial Hostility Act under which Bollers instituted her private criminal charge.
In a statement issued yesterday, the DPP’s Office does not identify the media entities in particular, but says, “We wish to state that the Office will continue to operate in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws which are concerned in each case.”
According to the statement, “The Office will continue to uphold the rule of law as it is mandated to.”
It then goes on to further state, “the DPP’s Office will not be intimidated or hindered by cheap and baseless attempts on partisan positions in carrying out its constitutional functions.”
“The office of the DPP can boast of its professional approach to all cases receiving” the statement then asserts; before going on to conclude, “The DPP’s Office reassures the public that it will continue to remain apolitical, and act in a lawful and professional manner devoid of any prejudices.”
Amid a public outcry Ali-Hack has come under heavy criticism for discontinuing the charge, with questions being raised that she was essentially determining the case instead of leaving that to the Court.
The charge against Singh stated that on March 20th, 2022, at Middle and Cummings streets, he made derogatory and racial remarks to Police Con-stable 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.
Bollers had filed a defamation suit against the attorney back in March and in her statement of claim, she stated that while on duty at Justice Singh’s residence, on the night of March 20th, his son approached and chased her off the property.
She said that the incident occurred at approximately 22:13 hrs that night and she was forced to immediately abandon her post and duties, having to walk for a couple of miles to another location “in the dark of night alone.”
Ali-Hack’s position is that the elements of the charge against Singh have not been established.
Bollers through her attorney Eusi Anderson, has said that she intends to challenge the DPP’s decision all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
