Justice Gino Persaud yesterday dismissed an application filed by Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus and his wife, Adonika Aulder, to travel to the United States for medical attention. The application, made by their attorney, Earl Daniels, sought permission for Brutus to accompany his pregnant wife for treatment, but it was refused amid revelations that Brutus is facing 240 pending charges related to money laundering and other serious financial crimes.
According to an affidavit submitted in opposition to Brutus’ application, the state has frozen nine bank accounts held by Brutus, his wife, and their minor son.
The State, represented by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall and a team of legal advisors, strongly opposed the application, arguing that Brutus is a flight risk given the serious nature of the charges.
Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna V. Lall, representing the state, argued that Article 148 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of movement, is not absolute and is subject to limitations.
One such limitation is the requirement for public servants, including Brutus, to seek permission from their permanent secretaries before leaving the jurisdiction, a step Brutus had not taken.
Daniels also contended that while Brutus had been informed through the media about the investigation by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), his client had not been directly contacted by SOCU.
He assured the court that Brutus would return to face the allegations if granted permission to leave the country. However, SOCU’s head, Fazil Karimbaksh, revealed in his affidavit that Brutus and his wife had been avoiding contact with the police, further supporting the state’s position that they may abscond.
Justice Persaud, as such, questioned why Brutus had not been arrested, given the state’s claim that he was unreachable. In response, the state indicated that it had not deemed it necessary to arrest him despite his alleged unavailability.
Brutus, who was present in court, maintained that at no point had the Guyana Police Force attempted to arrest him. The state further argued that Brutus and his wife had not provided evidence to support their claim that medical treatment was unavailable in Guyana.
Although Daniels presented a document from a private hospital to support the claim, Justice Persaud did not accept it as it had not been properly submitted with the application.
Brutus and his wife are under investigation by SOCU for fraud and financial crimes amounting to over $800 million, with the impending charges stemming from violations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act.
The state argued that given the gravity of the charges and the significant public interest in the case, the couple should be denied permission to leave the country. In his ruling, Justice Persaud held that Brutus and Aulder had not sufficiently demonstrated that their constitutional rights had been infringed. He noted the severity of the investigation and the need to balance public interest, particularly with respect to the pending charges.
