The High Court is expected to deliver a ruling today, following more than three hours of legal arguments yesterday over an application seeking the immediate release of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, who remains behind bars at Lusignan Prison.
Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif fixed the date during yesterday’s proceedings, which saw Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC and attorneys representing Mohamed advance competing arguments over the High Court’s authority to grant interim bail while a substantive challenge to a Magistrate’s refusal of bail remains pending.
The lengthy hearing centred on whether Mohamed could be granted temporary release before the determination of the judicial review proceedings challenging Magistrate Abigail Gibbs’ October 30 decision to remand him to prison.
Nandlall strongly opposed the application, arguing that Mohamed’s attorneys had chosen to pursue judicial review rather than other available legal remedies and could not use an interim application to bypass the statutory procedures governing that challenge.
The Attorney General maintained that the Judicial Review Act provides specific avenues for challenging decisions and that the Court must consider the nature of the proceedings before granting the relief being sought.
He argued that Mohamed’s attorneys could have pursued constitutional remedies or other legal avenues but instead deliberately selected judicial review, which carries its own procedural requirements.
Nandlall also revisited his objections to the affidavit originally sworn by Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, arguing that the defence could have obtained sworn evidence directly from the Opposition Leader when the proceedings were first instituted.
According to the Attorney General, Mohamed’s incarceration did not prevent his attorneys from obtaining an affidavit, since they had access to him at Lusignan Prison.
He maintained that the subsequent filing of Mohamed’s own affidavit could not automatically cure the alleged defects in his mother’s original evidence.
The State also argued that Magistrate Gibbs had already considered the competing interests of Mohamed’s personal liberty and the administration of justice before refusing bail.
During the proceedings, it was repeatedly put forward by the state that the Magistrate had provided reasons for her decision and that the High Court should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion through an interim application without properly examining the substantive challenge.
However, Mohamed’s attorneys rejected the suggestion that the High Court lacked authority to grant interim relief.
The defence maintained that the Judicial Review Act and applicable procedural rules preserve the Court’s power to make temporary orders where necessary to prevent injustice while substantive proceedings remain pending.
Counsel argued that the legislation does not remove the High Court’s ability to grant interim relief and that such powers remain available in appropriate circumstances.
The defence further contended that Mohamed’s continued imprisonment was causing ongoing prejudice, since each additional day in custody represented a loss of liberty that could not be restored if the High Court subsequently determined that the refusal of bail was unlawful.
His attorneys also argued that the State had been afforded opportunities to file evidence addressing the allegations raised in support of the application.
The more than three-hour exchange saw both sides rely extensively on statutory provisions, constitutional principles and previous judicial decisions to support their respective positions.
The latest proceedings follow an urgent application filed by Bonita Mohamed on November 8 seeking her son’s immediate release on interim bail rather than waiting for the substantive hearing, previously scheduled for November 23.
Alternatively, the defence has asked the Court to determine the bail issue separately or bring forward the substantive hearing.
The application proposes several conditions should Mohamed be granted interim bail, including surrender of travel documents, restrictions on leaving Guyana, regular police reporting and prohibitions on contacting prosecution witnesses.
The High Court is also considering separate applications by the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions seeking to strike out portions of affidavits submitted in support of Mohamed’s challenge.
Those applications have resulted in further legal arguments concerning the admissibility of evidence and the extent to which the Court can rely on the sworn statements submitted by Mohamed and his mother.
Mohamed has remained at Lusignan Prison since October 30, when he and Police Constable Ryan Greene were remanded after pleading not guilty to cybercrime charges connected to the alleged unauthorised obtaining and disclosure of police surveillance footage relating to the October 12 shooting incident outside the Kitty residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine.
Following yesterday’s lengthy hearing, Justice Chandra-Hanif fixed today for her ruling.
Mohamed remains in custody pending the Court’s decision.
Discussion