Faced with widespread backlash in light of its decision to discontinue a private criminal charge against Attorney-at-Law Nirvan Singh whom a Woman Police Constable has accused of exciting racial hostility against her, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has assured that it remained apolitical and would continue to discharge its functions devoid of prejudice.
In a statement issued on Monday, the DPP’s Chambers stated that it has observed reports in the media and otherwise about the matter that has no basis in law. Against this backdrop, the DPP’s Office stated that it would not be intimidated, or hindered by cheap and baseless attempts on partisan positions in carrying out its constitutional functions.
The statement noted that the Office would continue to operate in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws concerning each case and would continue to uphold the rule of law as it was mandated to do.
“The Office of the DPP can boast of its professional approach to all cases receiving attention. The DPP’s Office reassures the public that it will continue to remain apolitical, and act in a lawful and professional manner devoid of any prejudices,” it added.
Does not fit criteria
Last Friday, the Office issued a statement explaining why it advised the Police not to charge Singh.
The statement specifically addressed “Police v Nirvan Singh”, a file that was sent to the Chambers for advice by the Police on April 11, and did not directly touch on the reason for dropping the charge.
However, the private criminal charge filed by Policewoman Shawnette Bollers’ lawyer, Eusi Anderson, and the DPP’s advice to the Police were both pursuant to Section 2 of the Racial Hostility Act. The DPP’s Office, in its previous statement, said that it advised the Police against charging Singh because the evidence is inconsistent and does not fit the criteria for an offence under the Act. DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, did not provide a reason for discontinuing the charge other than stating, “In the exercise of the powers conferred on me by Article 187 (1) (c) of the Constitution…, I hereby discontinue the charge in the above matter”, in an April 27 letter addressed to the Chief Magistrate.
The private criminal charge, which was filed on April 4, was read to Singh on April 20 when he appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
The charge had stated that on March 20, 2022, at Middle and Cummings Streets, Georgetown, by words spoken by him in a public place, Singh wilfully excited and/or attempted to excite racial hostility and ill will against Bollers on the ground of her race as an Afro-Guyanese, by using words directed to her and published by him. She had alleged that Singh referred to her by the following phrases: “black monkey”, “monkey”, and “black people have no purpose in life”. She also accused the lawyer of spitting on her. These, she contended, are contrary to the Racial Hostility Act. Singh is the son of retired Justice Carl Singh, a former Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice.
Lawsuit
The cop has since instituted civil proceedings against Singh. In a defamation lawsuit filed at the Demerara High Court, she is seeking $150 million in damages. She argues that the words uttered by Singh, in their natural and ordinary meaning, were understood to mean that she was not a human being, and by extension, not worthy of recognition for her humanity or human dignity.
The Policewoman had alleged that Singh approached her and chased her off of his father’s property where she was conducting security duties, forcing her to abandon her post. She complained that in chasing her, the lawyer spoke to her in an “aggressive and loud manner” while hurling several racist remarks at her. She said the tirade lasted for about 14 minutes, after which she left the scene and walked a couple of miles to another location in Georgetown in the dark of night alone.
But Singh had denied the allegations, stating, “I wish to say that the racist conduct of which I am accused in no way reflects my philosophy or personal values. More importantly, it would be an indictment on my parents and elders, given their efforts to ensure that my upbringing would produce in me a person of the highest moral, ethical, and professional conduct”.
Challenge
Bollers’ lawyer, in a press statement on Monday, said that the DPP’s statement explaining her decision to annul the charge contains a factual matrix that is convoluted and replete with critical omissions. According to Anderson, the foundation for the reason is tenuous in law, noting that the forum to address such an issue is not the court of public opinion but rather a court of law.
As such, he said his client, who is profoundly hurt by the imposition of yet another burden in her quest for justice, has instructed him to challenge the DPP’s decision.
He added that if it became necessary, Ali-Hack would face legal action in both civil and criminal jurisdictions. The Policewoman has already vowed to challenge the decision all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Meanwhile, during a protest outside the DPP’s office last Thursday, Bollers accused Ali-Hack of denying her of her right to be heard in court. Among those criticising the DPP’s decision is the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Opposition.
