Mingo’s attorney withdraws case asking for his release
Darren Wade, the Attorney for embattled District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, on Friday withdrew an application for Mingo to be released from Police custody.
Mingo was arrested on Tuesday last as the Police probe fraud in the events that followed the March 02 elections.
Wade had filed a Fixed Date Application claiming a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum to be issued and directed to the Commissioner of Police in favour of the release of Mingo.
The case was heard Friday morning before Justice Rishi Persaud, the acting Chief Justice.
The Attorney General appeared in person together with Mr Nigel Hawke, Solicitor General, Ms Deborah Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General and Mrs Beverley Bishop- Cheddie, Assistant Solicitor General for the Commissioner of Police.
Mr Teriq Mohamed, State Counsel appeared for and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
According to the Attorney General’s Chambers, at the beginning of the hearing of the matter before the Court, Wade conceded that the matter would soon become academic in a matter of hours and reported to the Court that he was having access readily to his client.
The Attorney General in his oral arguments contended that the Fixed Date Application was wholly misconceived and wrong, that Courts do not sit in academic matters.
He further stated that Habeas Corpus applications address issues of unlawful arrest and or detention. The Attorney General further underscored that the Applicant’s detention was not unlawful as Article 139 (4) of the Constitution permits the Police to detain a citizen for a period of 72 hours before being released and taken before a Court. The period of the Applicant’s detention for 72 hours has not yet expired.
The Attorney General further argued that the Applicant’s case is also misconceived and that any allegations of breach of a person’s or suspect’s constitutional rights ought properly to be canvassed in an Application for Constitutional relief made under Part 56.01 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
On this aspect, the Attorney General further contended that the Fixed Date Application filed was fundamentally flawed as the provision relied upon was Article 144 of the Constitution which addresses the right to a fair hearing which bore no relevance to the application filed on behalf of Mr. Mingo.
In this regard, the Attorney General cited the case of Attorney General of Guyana v Keshwar Ramlall (2015) 86 WIR 347 in which the Judgment of Justice Carl Singh, which stated that when invoking constitutional provisions it is incumbent to identify the specific provision(s) which is/ are alleged to have been breached and for the matrix of the evidence supporting that violation to be specifically pleaded.
In the final analysis, Mr. Wade conceded and withdrew his application filed on behalf of Clairmont Mingo and there was no order as to costs.