National Border Patrol Director Daniel Seeram has still not been handed over to prison authorities two days after losing his High Court challenge to a remand order pending sentencing for assaulting his former wife, prison sources told Kiskadee Watch last evening.
The information raises questions about the execution of the remand order, following Justice Joy Persaud-Singh’s ruling that there was no indication Magistrate Abigail Gibbs had acted unlawfully, irrationally or outside her jurisdiction.
Seeram was found guilty on October 2 of assault causing actual bodily harm against his former wife, Farzana Hamid, and ordered remanded to prison. Sentencing is scheduled for November 2 at 10.30 am at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court.
Following an application by his attorney, Nigel Hughes, Justice Persaud-Singh had ordered that Seeram be held at the Sparendaam Police Station lockups pending Monday’s hearing. The High Court subsequently dismissed his application for judicial review, leaving the magistrate’s remand decision undisturbed.
The latest information from prison officials does not establish Seeram’s present location or whether he remains in police custody.
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed visited the Lusignan and Camp Street prisons on Monday night and said in a video that officers at both facilities had confirmed Seeram was not there.
“I am standing at the Lusignan Prison confirming through prison officers that he is not here. I will shortly head to Camp Street Prison to make further checks. Prison Officers have confirmed that wife beater Daniel is not here neither. So, he is not at Lusignan and he is not at Camp Street Prison. This is a slap in the face of every domestic violence victim during this domestic violence month,” Mohamed said.
Mohamed accused the PPP/C administration of protecting abusers and fraudsters and alleged executive interference in the administration of justice.
“Our sources within the Guyana Prison Service say this is only the second time in their 22 years of service that they know of, where a person was remanded and never made it to jail. The first was Kevin Lorrimer, who was sentenced to nine months for fraud but never spent a day in prison. This is what happens when there is no separation of powers. This happens when the Executive meddles in the Judiciary, when the Courts cannot function independently. Court orders mean nothing in this country anymore,” he said.
The Lorrimer case he referenced involved Kevon Lorrimer, who was convicted in absentia on June 19, 2025, and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretence.
Stabroek News reported on July 10, 2025, that Lorrimer had been arrested earlier that week but remained in police custody and had not been transferred to prison authorities. The charge concerned $500,000 obtained from a Linden resident by falsely claiming he could secure a land title. Lorrimer was never in prison, at one time he was reportedly in hospital, and it is now being said he appealed the sentencing and was granted bail pending the conclusion of the appeal.
In Seeram’s case, remand pending sentencing means that guilt has been determined but punishment has not yet been imposed. His detention rests on the court’s custody order.
Section 31(2)(b) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:02, provides generally for a court, upon adjourning a hearing, to “commit him to prison or to other safe custody as the court thinks fit”. That general provision does not, by itself, establish that continued police detention complies with the particular orders made in Seeram’s case.
The assault case arose from an incident at the couple’s Cummings Lodge apartment on September 11, 2023. They have since divorced.
Kiskadee Watch previously reported that Hamid testified that Seeram repeatedly assaulted her and damaged her phone. Seeram denied assaulting her, saying he pushed her while attempting to leave and maintaining that she was the aggressor.
Magistrate Gibbs accepted Hamid’s evidence and found that her injuries could not have resulted from a single push. She concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that Seeram had not acted in self-defence.
Following the verdict, Hughes asked the magistrate to reconsider remand, citing Seeram’s national responsibilities and attendance at court. The magistrate declined to alter her decision.
Seeram was Region Four Chairman and a PNCR executive at the time of the incident. He has since left the party.
Discussion