Businessmen sue GRA for wrongful arrest
they have reasonable suspicion of them having committed, or being about to commit a criminal offence.
Supplying chicken
The men explained in their statement of claim that on May 28th, in keeping with conditions of their bail, they returned to the Vigilance Police Station, where they were then instructed to visit the GRA.
Upon arrival at the revenue authority, Hameed and Boodwah said in their statement of claim, they met with Persaud and Wilson and were detained in two separate rooms.
Boodwah said that he was placed in a room with Bishpang, Persaud and Wilson, who questioned him for an hour, after which he was given a statement to read over and replicate in his own handwriting, which he said he did.
As for Hameed, he said he was questioned about his chicken supply business and whether he delivered raw chicken that was smuggled into Guyana to the GDF compound at base Camp Ayanganna. Hameed said that he denied the allegation, but Bishpang, Persaud and Wilson informed him that he had to pay a fine of $12 million.
According to Hameed, he enquired as to the reason for the fine and was informed by the three customs officers that it was a fine for smuggling chicken into Guyana. Hameed said that he denied ever smuggling chicken into Guyana, but was then directed to sit on a bench.
Hameed said that 10 minutes later, Persaud and Wilson again informed him that he needed to pay the fine. The claimant said he explained to the officers that he was not the only supplier of chicken to GDF but they refused to listen to anything he said and insisted that he pay the fine.
According to the statement of claim, Hameed said Persaud and Wilson then went into Moore’s office and returned to tell him that Moore had reduced the fine to $6 million. He said he again refused to pay, while insisting that he was not guilty of any offence.
Hameed said that it was at this point that Persaud informing him that if he did not pay the fine, he would have to return to jail at Vigilance Police Station; but he said he refused again to pay the fine, while professing his innocence.
According to Hameed, both he and Boodwah were then informed by Persaud that he had been instructed by his boss, to place them on $200,000 bail each, while stating that “it was better that they just pay the sum towards the fine.”
The Claimants said that they, however, again refused to pay a fine as they insisted they were not guilty of any offence, but they were thereafter informed by Persaud that their bail would therefore be raised to $500,000 each.
The claimants said that they were thereafter taken back to the Vigilance Police Station, where they were again detained, after which their families paid the bail and they were released. After being released, they said they were informed to return to GRA on May 31st.
The claimants have said that they were deprived of their liberty and suffered loss and damage as a result of the actions of the officers.
They said that upon arrival at GRA on the scheduled day, they were informed that no further action had been taken in their matter, since the file was sent to the Commissioner-General for review.
After returning to the GRA on June 3rd, the claimants said that Persaud informed them that the file had not yet been returned from the CommissionerGeneral’s office and so they were asked to again return on June 11th.
On that day, Hameed and Boodwah said that when they turned-up at the GRA office, they were informed by Persaud that their fines were reduced to $5 million and that they must go to a Justice of Peace to draw up an agreement to state how much they would be able to afford to pay in monthly installments.
According to them, they were then told to return in 14 days with the agreement.
The Claimants contend that they were at no time notified of the reasons for GRA’s decision requiring that they pay a fine, nor were they ever given an opportunity to defend or explain themselves before an impartial tribunal.
They are contending that in so doing, the defendants collectively acted in breach of their constitutional rights in that they failed to afford them a fair hearing before the courts and that they failed to treat them as innocent until proven otherwise.
They said, too, that the defendants failed to inform them of the nature of any offence with which they would be charged.
By their arrest, detention and imposition of the fines, the claimants expressed the view that the defendants collectively acted as judge, jury and executioner, contrary to the rules of natural justice.
Hameed and Boodwah are being represented by attorney Anil Nandlall.