Police denies violating Clairmont Mingo’s constitutional rights

Last Updated on Thursday, 27 August 2020, 13:39 by Writer

Police Commissioner, Nigel Hoppie.

As the High Court prepares to hear Region Four elections Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo’s request to be released from police custody, the Guyana Police Force Thursday afternoon refuted claims that he was denied access to his lawyers.

Police Commissioner Nigel Hoppie has been served an order for the habeas corpus case to be heard at 1:30pm Thursday.

Mr Mingo denies that he has committed fraud.

Following is the police force statement.

The Guyana Police Force (GPF) is categorically refuting repeated allegations made in the media by Attorneys-at-Law representing Mr Clairmont Mingo, to the effect that his constitutional rights were breached by the Police this is far from the truth.

Shortly after Clairmont Mingo arrived at the CID Headquarters, Eve Leary, following his arrest on Tuesday 25 August 2020 an Attorney Mr Darren Wade turned up and demanded an immediate conference with Mingo whom he said was his client. The Police Rank on duty directed the Attorney to a designated area where access to his client would be granted after the rank had completed making the necessary entries in the Police records.

However, instead of waiting in the area indicated and without any explanation Mr Wade immediately left the CID Headquarters compound and met with several members of the media on the road way, where he spoke with them and during which he proceeded to make some false allegations.

Noteworthy, however, is the fact that after this, the Attorney returned into the CID Headquarters where he met with his client Mr Mingo.

GPF also wishes to state that it remains ready, able and willing to engage with members of the Legal Profession to ensure that their constitutional rights and those persons they represent are respected at all times and that there is due process.

In this regard however, the Police Force expects that Attorneys-at-Law conduct themselves in a professional manner and with a due sense of responsibility in keeping with the ethical standard required of the Legal Profession. Unfortunately that expected level of professionalism was not evident in this instance.

Finally, it must be recognised that there are designated areas at Police locations which allow for privilege conversations. Consequently, member of the the public and of the Legal Profession who engage members of the GPF at any Police location ought to follow the directions of any Police Rank/Ranks on duty as it relates to access to persons in Police custody.