New laws, amendments consistent with growth of Guyana’s jurisprudence – Nandlall

Since assuming office almost two years ago, the PPP Government has passed new laws and amended existing ones in an effort to keep pace with the growth of the country’s jurisprudence.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has assured that such works will continue, because Guyana is a sovereign country and must tailor its legal system to meet the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of society.
He made this statement while addressing scores of residents during a recent ministerial outreach to Buxton/Friendship, East Coast Demerara (ECD).
He explained that Guyana, like other Commonwealth countries, inherited its legal system from the British. Although this system is not perfect, he pointed out, “it is regarded as the most perfect man-made system in the world; that is the beauty of the British legal system.”
He, however, said this does not mean Guyana is not working on developing its system. For context, he referred to a recent decision by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in which it ruled that the law which empowers the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to direct a magistrate is void.
The CCJ held that a law that renders the magistrate’s professional decision-making subject to the dictates of another official cuts straight through Article 122A of the Constitution of Guyana, and must be declared void to the extent of its inconsistency with that Article.
Article 122A (1) provides that “All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive, and any other form of direction and control.”
The statute in question is Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, which outlines the procedure for committal of an accused person to stand trial. It confers the DPP with the authority to direct a magistrate, after the discharge of an accused person at the end of a preliminary inquiry (PI), to reopen the said PI and commit the accused person once he/she is of the opinion that a prima facie case has been established to warrant a committal.
The Attorney General said Government is in the process of correcting this law to amend the deficiency highlighted by the country’s highest court. “If that court says the thing is wrong, then we have to comply with that. That is what the doctrine of separation of powers says,” he added.
Section 72 of the Act will be amended to allow the DPP, if aggrieved by the decision of a Magistrate to discharge an accused person at the end of a preliminary inquiry, to now now make an ex-parte application to a Judge of the High Court for a warrant to arrest and commit the discharged person for trial. The Judge may grant that application only if he is of the view, from the evidence that was placed before the Magistrate who discharged the accused person, that such a course of action is required.
In keeping with the above pronouncements and sentiments expressed by the CCJ, and in due regard to the doctrine of separation of powers, the Government intends to table a Bill in the National Assembly seeking to amend Section 72 of the Act in the manner and form recommended by the CCJ.
In keeping with Government’s policy of consulting with important stakeholders on matters of national importance, the AG, on June 15, transmitted copies of the Bill, along with an invitation for their comments, to the DPP, Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC; Senior Police Legal Advisor Sonia Joseph; President of the Guyana Bar Association, Pauline Chase; and President of the Berbice Bar Association, Horatio Edmonson.
In August 2021, almost three years after the CCJ had struck down Guyana’s colonial-era cross-dressing law, the Government passed a Bill to decriminalise cross-dressing. That Bill removed Section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, which had prohibited every person who, “being a man, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in a female attire; or being a woman, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in a male attire.”
Among other things, the CCJ had found that the law was unconstitutionally vague, and contrary to the rule of law in that it violated the rights of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed by the Constitution. (G1)