AG contends Magistrate had ‘no power’ to grant Brutus’ wife permission to leave Guyana
By: Shemar Alleyne
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, S.C., contends that a magistrate has “no jurisdiction or power” to grant permission to a person charged with serious offences to leave the country.
During his weekly programme, ‘Issues in the News,’ he said that, as stipulated by Guyana's Constitution, such decisions fall solely within the purview of the High Court.
“When a person is charged, that person is in the custody of the court,” Nandlall explained. “Only the High Court, through its constitutional authority, can entertain such applications.”
The AG comments followed a recent ruling by Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, who permitted Adonika Aulder, the pregnant wife of embattled Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus, to travel abroad for emergency medical treatment.
Aulder has been charged with two counts of money laundering. In December 2023, she allegedly obtained $352,082,315 from her company's account at Republic Bank with a reasonable belief that the money was obtained through illegal means.
Her husband, on the other hand, is facing over 200 charges relating to financial crimes. However, the AG further elaborated on the conditions of bail, stating that defendants who are out on bail are either in the custody of their bailors or under the court’s jurisdiction.
He noted that the principle of bail inherently restricts a defendant from leaving the country unless the High Court grants explicit permission.
A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
Nandlall called out the magistrate for failing to recognise the limits of her jurisdiction, particularly in light of a previous High Court ruling on October 18, 2024.
In that instance, Justice Gino Persaud, who sits in the High Court, denied a joint application by Aulder and Brutus to travel to the United States for medical treatment.
The High Court’s decision, the AG noted, should have been binding on the lower court under the doctrine of stare decisis.
“But let us assume that a magistrate had the power. A magistrate ought to have considered him or herself bound by the manner that the High Court treated the matter, following the doctrine of stare decisis and the doctrine of precedent, because the decision of a higher court binds the decision of a lower court.”
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LEGAL SYSTEM
Furthermore, the Attorney General expressed concerns about the long-term implications of the magistrate’s ruling.
He argued that if such decisions are allowed to stand, they could set a dangerous precedent, leading to further misapplications of the law by lower courts.
“The error must be corrected. The public record must be rectified and cleansed of these legal travesties for the want of a better word,” The AG asserted.
“You can't leave these decisions in the public record. Future magistrates may follow suit and where would that put the law? Even if I am wrong, let us say I am wrong. We need to get the issue clarified at a minimum. You cannot leave the law, not in this state.”
Comments