Judge: Guyana ex-president allowed to travel despite charges

Former Guyanese president Jagdeo petitions High Court to lift travel restrictions        

Saturday, May 30, 2015 | 5:12 PM, Source - Jamaica Observer   

GEORGETOWN, Guyana, (CMC) - Former President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo has petitioned the High Court to lift the travel restriction imposed by the Lower Court due to private criminal proceedings that were recently brought against him.

When he appeared in court earlier this week, Magistrate Charlene Ortega ruled that the former head of state must seek the court's approval before he leaves the country.

In the petition to the High Court, Jagdeo, through his attorney Mursalene Bacchus, asked the court to remove the restriction, as he is required to leave the country regularly because of international obligations.

According to the petition, the condition outlined by the Magistrate would cause “onerous duty and grave hardship on your petitioner (Jagdeo), since he resides 75 miles away from Whim Magistrate’s Court and he can only seek permission to leave the jurisdiction on days that the case would be called.

The application also states that the Magistrate failed to consider that the former president may have medical emergencies and obligations that will require him to be out of the country.

Jagdeo faces the possibility of a jail term under the Representation of the People Act if he is found guilty.

The former president is facing a charge filed by attorney Christopher Ram who alleged that statements made by Jagdeo on March 8 about the beating of drums to drive one race out of office could result in ethnic violence or hatred as cited in the Representation of the People Act.

He is scheduled to return to court on June 23.

frivolous charges

the charge is not "frivolous" mah man

restricting Jagdeo's freedoom of movement is obvious overkill

probably done to underline to Dr 5 that he is now an ordinary citizen

the overturn is proper

The Magistrate screwed up and went too far.  Now the trial would not be taken seriously.

I heard the speech and was not incited to do anything. Let's leave the politics out of this and discuss the legal aspect. I have no background in law. Now, what has to be proved to convict jagdeo? That people were incited to commit acts of violence? Did violence occur as a result of what he said? Did he have an intention to incite? does the law infringe on his rights of free speech? Where are legal experts?

What?  Beat drum?  When I heard that I immediately went and torched two cars!  

Frivolous charges brought against him by Chris Ram. He did not utter racial charges...he was politicking on the campaign trail....get real people...

And all of you are naive to think that the PNC/APNU were not doing their own "bottom house" campaign

These are not frivolous charges. These are foundational to future behavior. If the guyanese legal profession, had they one ounce of social conscience they could have been bringing a number of these suits to lay the groundwork for proper behavior by politician and administrators of  public offices. 

The fact the PPP fired no one, had no one suspended, etc in 23 years despite all sorts of mendacious behavior speaks to a lack of any legal traction for public accountability. I hope others join in and for example, sue the office holders to hell and back when they do stupid things. I hope someone takes on Gajrag. Brazzington should have been jacked up a long time ago.

OK so let us discuss Granger going to Buxton and telling them about "dem Indians banging drums to ensure that every Indian turns out to vote to keep black man out"/

EVERY single Indian here would be screaming murder and many would be engaging in the usual screams of Indian Holocaust and how Africans don't want Indians in Guyana, etc.

But when an Indo engages in that, its minor matters.  Why should any one care about who Afro Guyanese feel?

I stated  my personal response when I heard the speech several days after. Still, I am curious as to the legal requirements for conviction. I have been reading the comments on this board for years and I have read far worse than that. Are these individuals then open to the same charge, that they are inciting. I do not hear of them going and committing acts of violence against other members on the board or the general public. What does the private prosecutor have to prove to get a conviction?

Who did not know the PNC "bottom house" campaign, this was no different than 2011 except AFC ran independently.  PNC was very effective here while PPP lagged and tried a late run.

You go do it nah.  You said in 2011 if PNC win you packing up and going home.  What happen now, alyuh win, or like the master proffy, you gat nuff ASSets to protect?

Jagdeo is baggage that the PPP/C need to toss out if they wish to move on. It's hilarious to see how he humbled himself before the Judge.

It's so hilarious to see all who were talking about returning home how they have suddenly gone silent about that topic.  

Dem leff with white mouth thinking Granger looking for "talent",  so they conjure up "protection of ASSets".  Granger gatt he own talent, yuh nah see dem big brite appointments deh?

lol

PPP drafted the law . . . go ask them what their "original intent" was

ONLY A DUMB AHOLE WILL SAY THE CHARGE IS NOT FLIVOROUS. BEATING DRUMS IS NOW A CRIMINAL TERM???  ON WHAT PLANET FOOLS????????????

He decided not to. Cassava and piwari do not have an international market.