Only High Court had power to allow Brutus’s wife to travel – Nandlall

…says magistrate overstepped powers, should have adhered to previous ruling

The recent decision by acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty to allow Adonika Aulder, wife of embattled Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus, to travel overseas despite a previous High Court ruling that had denied her request, is being challenged by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC.

During his recent edition of Issues in the News, Nandlall noted that this decision by the acting chief magistrate cannot be allowed to stand, lest future magistrates rule in a similar manner.
This is especially so since Aulder and Brutus, who are both facing several criminal charges, had made a previous application for Aulder to be permitted to travel overseas for medical reasons, but that application had been denied by High Court Justice Gino Persaud back in October.
Nandlall pointed out that, in its previous ruling, the High Court had refused Aulder permission to travel over concerns about her being a flight risk. He contended that the doctrine of Stare Decisis, which means a lower court abides by the precedent set by the higher one, should have been followed.
“A magistrate ought to have considered him or herself bound by that determination. First of all, the magistrate should not have entertained the application, because (a magistrate has) no power to do anything with it other than to reject it. But let us assume the magistrate had the power. The magistrate should have considered his or herself bound by how the high court treated with the matter, following the doctrine of precedent and Stare Decisis,” Nandlall has said.
Further, Nandlall explained that should the High Court grant someone permission to leave, the court also stipulates when that person is to return. He also noted that the High Court can also impose conditions, such as requiring the person to lodge property or money to ensure the person does return to the jurisdiction.

Powers
“The magistrate doesn’t have those kinds of powers. The High Court only has it because the Constitution gives it those powers. The magistrate is a creature of statute, and once you are out on bail, you have to remain in the jurisdiction of bail. The magistrate can’t permit you out of the jurisdiction. That power was only given to the High Court by the Constitution,” Nandlall elaborated.
Nandlall explained the various conditions under which accused persons are released by the court. They can be remanded to prison, released on bail, or on their own recognizance. In Aulder’s case, she was released in October on $1 million bail for charges related to money laundering, and was released on a further $1 million bail last month for two counts of money laundering.
“It is my respectful contention that a magistrate has no jurisdiction or power to grant permission for a defendant to leave the jurisdiction, where that defendant is charged with a criminal offence and has been granted bail. The reason is very simple: when a person is charged, that person is in the custody of the court, and the court can do one of three things: If the person doesn’t plead guilty…the court can remand…
“Second option is the court can hand the person over into the custody of the bailor. In that case, the person is in the custody of that person in the same way that the defendant is in the custody of the Director of Prisons…
“The third situation is (that) when you are not granted bail or put on remand but you’re allowed to go on your own recognizance. So, you’re not on bail. You’re not on remand. You’re free to go. It’s only in that third instance, when you’re free to go, you may be permitted to leave the country if you wish. But where you are remanded, obviously you cannot leave the country; and when you are remanded in the custody of your bailor, you cannot leave the jurisdiction,” Nandlall explained.
Nandlall has stressed that the magistrate’s court, as a “creature of statute”, has no power in that statute to grant persons on bail the power to leave the jurisdiction. Rather, this power resides with the High Court.
“That is why persons granted bail in criminal matters in the magistrate’s court are required to go to the High Court for permission to leave. The High Court gets the power from the Constitution of Guyana because the Constitution of Guyana confers on every citizen freedom of movement, including freedom to travel,” Nandlall has said.
The Guyana Police Force has only recently had cause to debunk claims that the Senior Immigration Officer, Deputy Superintendent Phiona Harris, had been transferred after permitting Aulder to leave the country in accordance with the Chief Magistrate’s order.
Aulder’s husband, Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus, is currently facing over 200 charges which have their genesis in a Special Organized Crime Unit’s (SOCU’s) investigation which began in July 2024. The charges pertain to liability of the officer in the handling of GPF funds.
In October, Aulder was slapped with two counts of money laundering. SOCU has alleged that during December 2023, she withdrew $243 million and $180 million from two separate Republic Bank accounts registered to her businesses, and these sums allegedly were derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of crime.