Dear Editor,
Very often in our lives, we encounter people who insert themselves into the limelight with the sole expectation of attracting attention to their overrated and/ or otherwise insignificant selves. These thoughts crossed my mind as I read a letter that found its way into the public domain (no doubt deliberately so) which was addressed to the Director of Public Prosecutions by Nigel Hughes. It is an intriguing letter.
I also read an APNU/AFC post, which described the same Nigel Hughes as one of the best legal brains in Guyana. My immediate reaction was that APNU/AFC was obviously, for more reasons than one, in disagreement with the CCJ on our Court of Appeal decision, following the public advocacy by Nigel Hughes, that in relation to the now celebrated “no-confidence motion case” that a vote of 33 members in the National Assembly was not the majority of 65, which case saw Hughes recommending “rounding up the half men” in the National Assembly. The CCJ poured scorn on this notion.
In his letter to the DPP on the death of the Dartmouth resident Boston, Hughes disclosed that apart from Boston’s wife, there were other witnesses whose statements disclosed that Boston’s death was an act of murder. To this, I say, “Nigel Hughes for Crime Chief.” Mercy! Hughes on a program with David Hinds said publicly, that Boston was sleeping naked in his bed with his wife when he was shot. Now Hughes writes to introduce other witnesses to the death of Boston. These witnesses had to be people peeping into Boston’s bedroom.
Then Hughes advises the DPP that a review of the Standard Operating Procedures for the use of deadly force by the police did not disclose any circumstance which justified the discharge of a deadly weapon by the police when they entered the premises of Mr Boston. The circumstances which confronted the police in the premises of Mr Boston would hardly be explicitly set out in the Standard Operating Procedures of the Guyana Police Force. Those circumstances would be gathered from the statements of those witnesses, which were reviewed by the DPP and not the statements that investigator Hughes claims to have in his possession.
Further Hughes claims to have instructions about the nature of the instructions issued to the SWAT team on the day of the death of Boston. To this, I say,” Hughes for Commissioner of Police.”
Then stunningly, Hughes informed the DPP that “we are unaware” of any legal basis upon which a charge of manslaughter could have been properly instituted. I am sympathetic to Nigel Hughes’ state of unawareness.
That Nigel Hughes is unaware of the legal basis for the preferment of a charge of manslaughter is of no moment. It is a matter solely for the DPP, having considered the statements of witnesses submitted to her, to determine 1. whether an offence has been disclosed and 2. the nature of the charge to be laid by the police.
Hughes is seeking to direct the DPP, a constitutional officeholder, who is not under the direction or control of anyone including Hughes himself. As I listened to Nigel Hughes on the David Hinds program, I saw through his veneer of pretended sophistication, his deep guttural tone, and his portrayal of both a knowledgeable and authoritative style and clearly recognized his agenda. His narrative was dangerous. Speaking as authoritatively as he did, as a person present in Boston’s bed or bedroom would, on the events which occurred at Boston’s home. Nigel Hughes has substantially prejudiced the fair trial rights of the policeman charged with Boston’s death. Such was the damaging contribution of one of the best legal brains.
Since Nigel Hughes holds himself out to be so knowledgeable, I would like to ask him very politely, what he thinks should be the charge, for a man who removes with the intent to conceal, a video recording which captured the details of murder by shooting.
Sincerely,
Selwyn Persaud.
