Muslim scholar’s sexual assault case …DPP sends matter back to Magistrate, cites missing documents

May 23, 2017 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has announced that the matter for which

Muslim scholar, Nezaam Ali, is charged with the offence of Sexual Activity with a child by Abusing a Position of Trust, has been remitted to the Magistrate’s Court to be reopened.
According to the information contained in a statement which was released from the DPP Chambers yesterday, Director of Public Prosecutions Mrs. Shalimar Ali-Hack, in letter dated February 13, 2017, remitted the matter to Magistrate Alex Moore to re-open the paper committals.
The statement further outlined that on February 13, 2017, the DPP issued a directive to the Guyana Police Force to obtain certified copies of the original documents before the re-opening of the paper committals.
According to the statement subsequent to the first preliminary inquiry held before Magistrate Moore, it was discovered that the original documents which were tendered during the PI, had gone missing from the depositions.
“The DPP has since forwarded a report to Minister of Social Protection, Ms. Amna Ali, on the position of this matter.”
Neezaam Ali, also known as ‘Mufti’, an Imam of Lot 268 Section ‘C 5’ South, Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown was committed to stand High Court trial since 2013 on nine counts of engaging in sexual intercourse with boys under the age of 12.
According to reports, the 33-year-old Imam was alleged to have sexually assaulted the nine boys where they usually go to take Quran and Arabic lessons from him, between December 2011 and January 2012.
The virtual complainants allege that Ali had penetrative anal intercourse with them while they were minors.
The Muslim Scholar was charged with several counts of sexual activity with a child by abusing a position of trust. He was accused of assaulting nine boys while they attended classes at an East Coast Demerara Masjid. The Imam underwent a preliminary inquiry into the allegations before Magistrate Alex Moore at the Sparendaam Court.
In 2013 after perusing the evidence brought before him during the preliminary inquiries, Magistrate Moore found that there was sufficient reason to send Ali for High Court trial.
But Ali, through his lawyer Nigel Hughes, applied to the High Court to quash the committal. His application was made on several grounds, including that the Magistrate acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he failed to consider the expert opinion of Dr. Walter Ramsahoye, who testified that it was impossible for the accused to commit the act, since he is impotent.
According to court documents, Dr. Ramsahoye testified that “the individual whose psychological systems are severely compromised, cannot have sex with boy, girl, man or woman as he cannot have an erection.”
This statement was the essence of Ali’s defence, one which the defence claimed was ignored by the prosecution and the Magistrate.
He contended that there was no statement provided to the court to rebut the expert’s evidence, neither did the prosecution indicate or represent to the court that they intended to call any expert witness to give a rebuttal.
Ali’s legal team therefore applied to the High Court for an order or Rule of Certiorari directing Magistrate Moore to show cause why his decision to commit him based on the evidence should not be quashed.
In his reply Magistrate Moore, noted that police witness, Inspector Hatty David, testified that the statement laid over by the medical practitioner exceeded the specified period prescribed in paragraph (2) under the Sexual Offences Act.
The officer claimed that Dr. Ramsahoye’s opinion was formed from information provided by Ali, and was not one which came as result of doctors treating and attending to a medical condition, which the accused suffered, over a period of time.
The officer therefore deposed that no expert evidence was adduced by the prosecution. He denied that there was a defence, since the statement of Dr. Ramsahoye was laid over outside the statutory time limit, (some seven months after the prescribed period for doing so).
In this regard, the respondent outlined, that although the Magistrate did not consider the statement of Dr. Ramsahoye, it was for the jury (to consider), whether his expertise, in the matter was sufficient and if so, whether they would be prepared to accept and rely on his statement.”
Additionally then Chief Justice (CJ) Ian Chang in his decision dated July 31, 2015, said that, the court does not see it fit to quash the order of committal of the Magistrate by Certiorari. Chang, for that reason ordered that Magistrate Moore be awarded $25,000 in court cost.

---

---