Assistant Commissioner of Police, Calvin Brutus, who is facing more than 260 criminal charges related to allegations of financial crimes, has moved to the High Court to challenge the recent appointment of a Discipline Tribunal by the Police Service Commission to investigate him for breaches of discipline.

The embattled Assistant Commissioner of Police suspects that the Tribunal may have been set up to recommend that he be fired from the Guyana Police Force. He is currently on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the criminal case against him.

In challenging the establishment of the Discipline Tribunal, Mr. Brutus through his Attorneys Eusi Anderson and Darren Wade, is contending that the Tribunal would breach his Constitutional right as well as law and due process.

The Court action has been filed against the Police Service Commission, the Tribunal established by the Police Service Commission and the Attorney General.

He explains in his Court filing that except from being served with a bundle of documents by Deputy Commissioner of Police Errol Watts, which included a letter from the Police Service Commission about the appointment of the Tribunal, he was not served anything else in person. He said he learned through the media that the Tribunal’s first hearing was schedule for the 22nd January 2025.

Brutus said at the time he was unwell and consulted Dr. Ravi Motilall, who prescribed sick leave for him for a period of 14 days. He said he sent the sick leave document to the Police Service Commission.

The Doctor was called before the Tribunal and questioned about Mr. Brutus’ medical complaint. Following his appearance before the Tribunal, Dr. Motilall withdrew the medical sick leave that he had granted to Mr. Brutus.

In the Court filing, Mr. Brutus has stated that he was never served with any summons to appear before the Tribunal and learned about reports that he was evading an appearance before the Tribunal when he was contacted by journalists.

He said the Tribunal is convening a trial for two offences of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline against him. Mr. Brutus further explained in his Court filing that the two charges that the Tribunal is examining covers more than 21 of the same charges that he is currently facing in the Magistrates’ Court. He said the criminal proceedings against him in the Magistrates’ Court are first in time and remain without determination.

He contends that his attendance and participation in the proceedings of the Tribunal will have adverse consequences for his criminal trial, which is yet to start. He said if he does not attend or strategically participate, his conduct can be deemed as hostile, uncooperative, untruthful and foul of the expectation of the Commissioners.

The Assistant Commissioner said it is clear that the State is seeking a conviction in the criminal proceedings before the Court and is simultaneously seeking a conviction in the court of public opinion and the Tribunal.

He wants the High Court to declare that all summons directing him to appear before the Tribunal would amount to a breach of his Constitutional rights and that the Tribunal has no power to compel the attendance of any witness or party, who at the time of his or her summons to attend, is charged with a criminal offence born of the factual circumstances the Tribunal is charged with inquiring into.

Brutus is also seeking a permanent injunction and or conservatory order preventing the Tribunal from compelling the attendance of anyone charged with a criminal offence related to or arising from the factual circumstances that the Tribunal is charged with inquiring into.

A number of other orders are being sought as well as damages in excess of $100 Million.

Related posts:

Disciplinary Tribunal accuses ACP Brutus of avoiding service of summons Police Service Commission appoints Tribunal to examine Breaches in Discipline related to ACP Brutus President’s suspension of Police Service Commission was unlawful and unconstitutional -High Court rules President suspends entire Police Service Commission two days before High Court ruling on promotions