Jagdeo racial incitement case thrown out

Dec 13, 2015 News

---

Magistrate court does not have jurisdiction—Judge rules
Supreme Court Judge Navindra Singh has ruled that the facts submitted in the in case of racial incitement

that Attorney –at-Law Christopher Ram, brought against former President, Bharrat Jagdeo  are insufficient to constitute  the offence for which Jagdeo was charged.
Jagdeo faced a private criminal charge after he was accused of racial incitement during a speech at Babu Jaan, Corentyne, earlier this year.
Ram, also a Chartered Accountant and activist, had filed the matter in April. The motion was filed at the Whim Magistrate’s Court, Corentyne, Berbice. The charge is that Jagdeo uttered words causing racial or ethnic hatred, contrary to Section 139 D (1) (a) of the Representation of the People’s Act, Chapter 1:03.
The former President had reportedly uttered, “The opposition consistently shouts about the racism of the PPP but they practise racism. The opposition beat drums at six in the morning and say let us throw out those coolie people.”
Ram said that the statement “Can result in racial or ethnic violence or hatred among the people.”
The case was being heard by Magistrate Charlyn Artiga at the Whim Magistrates’ Court.
However, Jagdeo’s lawyer, Murseline Bacchus had argued that the charge was frivolous, vexatious and without any basis in law. They requested that it be dismissed. His lawyers also went to the Berbice High Court questioning Magistrate Artiga’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.  The challenge was made to Justice William Ramlal.
He had an Order/Rule Nisi of Certiorari directing Magistrate Artiga to show cause why a Writ/Order of Certiorari should not be issued against her, and to quash her decision or ruling in the private criminal proceedings.

Magistrate Artiga was represented by the Attorney General (Ag) Basil Williams, Prithima Kissoon and Judy Stuart.   The latter two Attorneys, Jagdeo’s Lawyer (Bacchus) and Attorney – Christopher Ram were all present for the hearing yesterday.
The AG was noticeably absent, when Justice Singh handed down a decision, declaring the Nisi Order by Judge Ramlal absolute.
In his ruling, the Judge noted that upon examination, the particulars of the offence sworn to by Ram, do not disclose sufficient facts for the offence. The Judge therefore, ruled that the Magistrate’s Court does not have jurisdiction to continue hearing the case.
The ten-page decision detailed that a number of issues were examined including whether the Magistrate’s ruling can be reviewed at that stage of the preliminary inquiry and whether the charge is fundamentally defective in that it does not disclose an offence and is therefore incapable of yielding a valid and legal conviction.
In this regard ,  the Judge asserted  that an examination of the section under which the applicant has been charged must first be examined  to determine  what constitutes the crime that the applicant has been charged with – in other words  the  elements of the  crime  that the information must prove  to the court in order to yield a valid conviction.
The court, the document outlined, will then determine whether each and every one of those elements is supported by facts stated in the particulars of the offence.

Section 139D (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, CAP 1:03 of the Laws of Guyana provides that any person who makes or publishes any a statement which results or can result in racial or ethnic hatred among the people shall be liable to conviction.
In order to adequately examine the elements in the offence, the document provided that the Court must first determine what racial or ethnic hatred is and as correctly submitted by Counsel for the Respondent (Chris Ram).
In the Court document, the Judge gave a breakdown of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and phrases in this context in the statue.
The Judge noted the use of the words “opposition, coolie people and the PPP” in the statement attributed to Jagdeo.
He underscored that without any further particulars a race or an ethnicity cannot be attributed to the opposition much less a race or ethnicity different from “coolie people.”
He noted, too that for the charge to be valid, the statements to constitute an offence must be shown to be calling for, supporting or encouraging the hatred of one group by another race or ethnicity.
“The Court does not find that the particulars of the offence have disclosed such facts.”
The case against Jagdeo was closely watched as it would be one of a first against a former leader of the country.
Asked for reaction to the decision, following the yesterday‘s proceeding, Attorney Christopher Ram asserted that one always has to respect the decision of the court. He indicated however that, Attorneys representing the Magistrate also have the option of challenging the Judge’s decision by way of an appeal.
Attorney-at-Law, Murseline Bacchus declined to comment.

---

---