Bail bid by US-sanctioned LOO: Sections of judicial review application legally defective – AG

Pull quote: “I’ve described this affidavit to the Judge as one of the worst affidavits I’ve ever read. In fact, it’s a carcass that has no… It’s a legal deformity. It violates almost every rule known to the law in relation to affidavits” – Attorney General
Attorney General (AG) and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall has described the affidavit filed in support of United States-sanctioned Azruddin Mohamed’s application to challenge the refusal of bail on a cybercrime charge as legally defective, arguing that 140 of its 146 paragraphs should be struck out.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday at the High Court following a hearing before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif, Nandlall said the affidavit contained numerous breaches of the rules governing such documents and could not properly form the basis of the relief being sought.

Mohamed has filed a judicial review application challenging the decision to deny him bail, with the matter being heard before the High Court.
Nandlall said he had filed an application seeking to strike out the affidavit, or the paragraphs he considers defective, arguing that the court could only act on evidence presented in accordance with the law.
“I’ve described this affidavit to the Judge as one of the worst affidavits I’ve ever read. In fact, it’s a carcass that has no… It’s a legal deformity. That’s how I described it to the Judge. It violates almost every rule known to the law in relation to affidavits,” the AG said.
He explained that a judicial review application is supported by an affidavit containing the evidence on which the applicant relies to obtain the orders being sought. As such, he said, the statements contained in the document must comply with established legal requirements.
6 of 146 paragraphs properly presented
According to Nandlall, only about six of the 146 paragraphs in Mohamed’s affidavit are properly presented, while the remaining 140 should be removed.
He argued that if the court grants his application, little or no basis would remain for the substantive judicial review proceedings, which he said was a consequence of the manner in which the application was prepared and filed.
Nandlall also criticised the decision to seek permission to introduce another affidavit after the proceedings had already commenced, contending that the document could only serve as a supplementary affidavit while the original remained before the court.
He maintained that the court must first determine his application to strike out the disputed portions of the original affidavit before considering the supplementary document.
The AG further argued that Mohamed’s legal team could have withdrawn the application and filed a new one but had instead chosen to proceed with the existing filing.
Bail Act 2022
Turning to the legal basis of the challenge, Nandlall explained that the Bail Act, enacted in 2022, provides two avenues for persons who have been remanded in custody to challenge the refusal of bail.
He said Section 17 allows an appeal to the Full Court, while Section 20 provides for an application for judicial review.
The Government, he explained, had opted to pursue the judicial review route because it provides a more direct process for examining whether the circumstances surrounding the refusal of bail were consistent with the provisions of the Act and the applicable legal principles.
Nandlall said that where a court finds that the refusal of bail was not in keeping with the law, the person should be granted bail rather than remain on remand.
He added that before the Bail Act was enacted, applications for bail challenges generally followed a longer process through constitutional proceedings.

Source: Guyana Times