High Court overturns dismissal of SOCU gold smuggling case

– Orders Magistrate to pay $50K court costs to Unit

Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Thursday granted judicial review relief in favour of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), quashing the decision of Magistrate Clive Nurse to dismiss a gold smuggling case against Brazilian national Osmil Costa Da Silva for want of prosecution.

The matter had been dismissed on the basis that the prosecution had failed to provide a Portuguese interpreter for Da Silva. The High Court, however, clarified that under Article 144 of the Constitution of Guyana, the responsibility to ensure that an accused person is provided with an interpreter rests with the Court.
Chief Justice Singh, in handing down the ruling on Thursday, reasoned that “the learned magistrate did not disclose a defence and, in fact, waffles between advancing a defence and conceding that the court was obligated to provide an interpreter.”
He commented that “SOCU prosecutors being present with several witnesses made it very difficult to understand how the case could have been dismissed for want of prosecution and that it was truly disingenuous to say that though you are in a position to prosecute today, your failures to be in such readiness in the past, when I did not dismiss, will today bear down upon you.”
In granting relief, the High Court held that Article 144(2)(f) of the Constitution of Guyana makes clear that an accused person who requires an interpreter must be afforded that facility without payment and that the responsibility to ensure that this is done rests with the court.
The dismissal was accordingly quashed, and costs were awarded in the sum of $50,000.00 to be paid by Magistrate Clive Nurse to SOCU.
The High Court hearing stemmed from a May 2025 session where Da Silva appeared before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty and was charged with the offence of possession of gold by a person not being a producer. On the same day, the case was adjourned and transferred to the Mahdia Magistrates’ Court before Magistrate Clive Nurse for trial.
It was reported that on a subsequent date, the prosecution was informed that it was required to have a Portuguese interpreter present at the next court sitting for Da Silva.
However, on March 23, 2026, when the case was called for hearing, SOCU prosecutors sought to commence the prosecution’s case with the assistance of a Portuguese interpreter. Defence counsel Latchmie Rahamat, however, objected to that interpreter being used on the basis that the interpreter had previously assisted SOCU during the investigative stage of the case and was therefore not independent.
The objection was upheld, and the prosecution was directed by the magistrate to secure another Portuguese interpreter.
The case was again called on April 20, 2026, which saw SOCU prosecutors and several witnesses appearing and seeking an adjournment, explaining that efforts were being made to secure another interpreter, including through the Brazilian Embassy.
Rahamat reportedly objected to the adjournment, contending that the matter had been fixed peremptorily and that further delay would waste judicial time. Magistrate Clive Nurse thereafter dismissed the case for want of prosecution even though three witnesses were present in court.
SOCU subsequently filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court, seeking declarations, an order for the appointment of an independent interpreter, and an order of certiorari quashing the dismissal of the charge against Da Silva.
In those proceedings, Magistrate Nurse indicated that the court’s approach may have proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the obligation to provide an interpreter and welcomed guidance from the High Court on the proper procedure to be adopted where interpretation services are required in the magistrates’ court.
Head of SOCU, Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh, emphasised that it is unfortunate that the unit had to resort to court action again to ensure compliance from Magistrate Clive Nurse since magistrates should not act illegally, irrationally, or arbitrarily and should exercise their discretion correctly in law, especially when justice is involved.
SOCU was represented by attorney-at-law David Brathwaite and attorney-at-law Darin Chan, while Magistrate Nurse was represented by state counsel from the Attorney General’s Chambers.