Prosecution in Brutus fraud trial withheld evidence that may clear him of guilt

Last Updated on Friday, 7 March 2025, 22:44 by Writer

The prosecution appeared to have withheld evidence that seemed to be in favour of former Assistant Police Commissioner, Calvin Brutus, who is facing more than 200 fraud charges, defence lawyer Eusi Anderson said Friday.

He told Demerara Waves Online News that, as a result of that admission by the prosecution and a promise to disclose the documentary evidence to the defence, Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty has since relaxed the conditions of the bail. This means, he said, the accused would now have to report to the Special Organised Crime Unit of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) once every two months instead of once monthly.

Following Att0rney-at-Law Earl Daniels’ written application to the court for certain statements, Mr Anderson said that in contrast to the prosecutor saying that she had completed disclosure of all of the evidence, a check revealed that she had had more than 50 statements that had been taken last year July from several police officers “which tend to be neutral or exculpatory of Mr Brutus.”

Among them were a statement by a police officer who was the sole person at the time responsible for accepting purchases made by the GPF. “That person said Mr Brutus was pressuring them to find more space to store items as they were coming in en masse so in that view the testimony of that person contradicted the substance of the charges against all of the defendants and, in that sense, the prosecutor has an even greater duty to disclose that statement,” the lawyer said. Mr Anderson explained that the crux of the case is that Mr Brutus purchased items but they were not delivered and he paid the co-charged persons and collected the money.

“She has a duty to disclose all that she has in her possession whether inculpatory of exculpatory. A prosecution does not get to say that ‘I show my hand as long as it is helpful to me’,” she said.

Mr Anderson said when the prosecutor was confronted, she said she thought the evidence was disclosed to the defence.

The other two documents, which he said Mr Daniels led arguments for disclosure, were the authorisations and applications to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs for the waiver for Mr Brutus’ wife, Adonika Aulder, to do work and supply goods and services to the GPF. “There are documents which tend to show that Mrs Brutus applied and was granted waivers. Those two documents, in written form, were in the possession of the prosecution at the date of the closed disclosure,” he said.

Asked if the prosecutor would be punished for withholding the documents from the Defence, Mr Anderson said he told the court that he did not have evidence of willful reasons that would amount to punishment. He said those reasons on the part of the prosecutor could include that she was not the investigator, not reasonably expected t0 go through hundreds of statements line by line, and she had a recent bereavement. “I did not apply for that because I have no basis or evidence to suggest that being willful and deliberate,” he said.

Even as the criminal case is before the court, Mr Brutus was fired on February 5, 2025, by the Police Service Commission (PSC) based on a recommendation by a Tribunal. He did not attend the tribunal hearings.

The PSC said the particulars of the offence are that Mr Brutus on the 11th day of January, 2024, gave instructions for payment of goods procured by the Government of Guyana, for the Guyana Police Force (GPF), in the sum of GY$13,670,204.00), to be made from the GPF’s Welfare Fund in violation of Standing Order 36 of the GPF.

The second count is that during December 2023 he caused records at the Quartermaster Stores of the GPF to be falsified, purporting to show goods in the value of GY$101,431,050.00 were delivered by Corwin Nicholson trading as 3D Construction to the GPF, knowing same to be false.