Today, High Court Judge Gino Persaud dismissed the application filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Calvin Brutus and his wife, Adonika Aulder, seeking permission from the Court to leave the country for the United States for alleged “legal, personal and medical reasons”.
Brutus and his wife are under investigation for alleged money laundering.
The Respondents named in the proceedings are the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police, Clifton Hicken. The Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) was added by the Court as an interested third party.
The State, represented by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna V. Lall; Principal Legal Advisor, Ronetta Sargent-Prince; and State Counsel Thalia Thompson, Paneeta Persaud and Mohanie Sudama, forcefully opposed the application.
The State’s Affidavit in Defence makes copious references to contentions made by Brutus in previous proceedings, in order to illustrate that his current application before Justice Gino Persaud was disingenuous, weak and tenuous.
The court heard that ACP Brutus and his wife are the subject of an ongoing SOCU investigation linked to fraud and financial impropriety amounting to over $800 million under various legislation in Guyana including the Anti-Money Laundering and 1 Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, Cap. 10:11. It is expected that this investigation will yield over 240 charges against Brutus and his wife.
It is on this basis that the State grounded its opposition to the Applicants being granted permission to leave the jurisdiction, given the breadth of the ongoing investigation and the gravity of the impending 240 charges against Brutus and his wife.
The State also argued that Article 148 of the Constitution, upon which Brutus relied, citing that his right to freedom of movement had been restricted, is not an absolute right and is subject to numerous limitations. One such limitation is that public servants, including Brutus, are required to seek and obtain leave of their Permanent Secretaries before they can leave the jurisdiction.
Counsel for Brutus admitted that no such request was made or approval obtained for his client to leave the country as he wishes from October 19 to 27, 2024. The State argued that the application before the Court was premature, noting that Brutus skipped that step before invoking its jurisdiction. The Court agreed.
The State further argued that Brutus and his wife provided no evidence whatsoever that the alleged medical treatment his wife seeks is not available in Guyana or that there are special circumstances warranting their travel to the United States, in light of the impending 240 charges.
Justice Gino Persaud highlighted this grave deficiency in the Applicants’ case, stating that the Court cannot consider evidence from the bar table through Brutus’ lawyer who attempted to produce medical documents from a local private hospital.
The State further argued that all these matters pose Brutus and his wife as a flight risk, arguing that they may well abscond and not return given the 240 charges that will soon be laid against them.
Counsel for the State highlighted to the Court that this matter has garnered significant public interest given that there is no officer of the status of Mr Brutus in recent history who has been the subject of such an egregious investigation involving over $800 million in offences against the laws of Guyana. The State contended that it is in the public interest that the Applicants be refused permission to leave the jurisdiction given that their physical presence is required for the successful prosecution of the offences.
The State argued that given the nature and seriousness of these alleged offences, and the impending 240 charges, there is a great likelihood that the Applicants may abscond to avoid prosecution. It was pointed out to the Court, as a demonstration of the seriousness of the investigation and impending charges, that the Applicants’ bank accounts have been frozen, save and except the salary account of Mr. Brutus to which he has access.
Justice Persaud, in dismissing the Application brought by Calvin Brutus and his wife, held that the Applicants did not sufficiently establish that their constitutional rights under the provisions of Article 148 of the Constitution were infringed.
Brutus and his wife were ordered to pay costs to each of the respondents in the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars $250,000.
