Lowenfield’s lawyer objects to MP prosecuting matter

Oct 24, 2020 News

Member of Parliament and attorney-at-law, Sanjeev Datadin.

Attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes.

Kaieteur News – Attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes, who is representing the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, who is facing several electoral fraud charges, yesterday made objections in court over a government Member of Parliament (MP), Sanjeev Datadin, prosecuting his client.
Lowenfield yesterday made another appearance in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts for the continuation of the six electoral fraud charges that were instituted against him by the Guyana Police Force (GPF) in relation to the ongoing investigation into the allegations of electoral fraud.
The charges allege three counts of misconduct in public office and three counts of forgery.
According to Hughes, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, S.C, has given a fiat to six attorneys-at-law; Sanjeev Datadin, Glenn Hanoman, Mark Conway, Ganesh Hera, Arudranauth Gossai and George Thomas to prosecute the matter. “We immediately objected to Mr. Datadin being in charge of the prosecution,” Hughes added.
The lawyer said that the objection was based on Datadin being a MP for the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) and to give him the responsibility to prosecute the matter that is highly political in nature would result in his client not having a fair trial.
As such Hughes asked the court to consider his objection and the Magistrate invited written submissions for the next hearing of the matter.
During an interview with reporters yesterday Datadin stated that there are five other prosecutors. He said, “The risk that is being complained of is really nothing to do with the reality of what is going on.”
Datadin added, “Being bias does not relate to a prosecutor…the test of bias and the test for the appearance of bias and the test for whether it would be fair or not really relates to the tribunal, as long as the tribunal is independent…the entire issue is a red herring; it’s a 33 is not half of 65.”
In closing, he stated that Hughes is conflating two things, the obligations of a prosecutor and the test of bias which relates to the court and not the prosecutor.
Meanwhile, there was disparity during the hearing of the matter yesterday after the prosecution asked for summary disposal of the charges against Lowenfield which will allow the Magistrate to handle the entire matter as opposed to the matter remaining indictable and sent before a judge and a jury.
Hughes stated that he objected to the matter being given a summary disposal and the Magistrate invited written submissions that will be presented to the court on the next hearing.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News