Commentary Questions Court Reasoning in Dr Ramayya's Remand Following Accident

In a letter to the Editor of the Guyana Times, Abel Seetaram expressed sadness regarding what he perceived as a one-sided legal system in Guyana, suggesting the law is applied only to a select few and has been misused by law enforcers.

Seetaram extended sympathies to families affected by road accidents. He referenced the public awareness of Dr Ramayya's remand by a sitting magistrate in Berbice, noting that the Attorney General described Dr Ramayya as a former MP, doctor, former REO, prominent political activist, a man with no criminal record, and a community-minded individual. However, the letter pointed out that the Attorney General did not comment on the remand itself, only comparing it to the remand of the Opposition Leader.

Seetaram mentioned that he had not heard any public protest regarding Dr Ramayya's remand, contrasting this with instances where bail was granted to others, such as a Policewoman who caused a young man's death on the East Coast and was granted bail upon her first court appearance. Furthermore, Seetaram stated that he never heard the Police assert that Dr Ramayya was driving under the influence during the accident, although a breathalyser test was administered to him after the incident.

He argued that as a well-known Guyanese figure, Dr Ramayya deserved fair treatment under the law, especially considering his medical condition. The magistrate remanded him after learning of his travel plans, which Dr Ramayya did not deny, but Dr Ramayya informed the court he intended to travel for a medical check-up. Seetaram suggested the court should have considered Dr Ramayya's age, character, and lack of a criminal record, potentially granting bail with conditions such as lodging his passport with the court, reporting to the Police station weekly, and having the Police notify the Immigration Department.

Seetaram contended that instead of ensuring equal application of the law, the magistrate remanded him based on the prosecution's arguments, contrasting this with the granting of bail to the Policewoman and others, which he attributed to the prosecutor objecting in Dr Ramayya's case. He questioned the court's reasoning, suggesting that prosecutors in Guyana can object to nearly anything to secure remands, sometimes for personal gain.

He asserted that justice must be impartial and not favor the powerful over ordinary citizens, citing concerns about alleged rapists walking free, law being bent for those with connections, and suspended sentences for wife abusers, as well as drug dealers walking free despite evidence. Seetaram emphasized that equal justice is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of Guyana, which mandates equality before and under the law.

Seetaram clarified that his demand was not for special treatment for Dr Ramayya, but rather that the same standards and principles applied to one person be applied to another in similar situations. He stated that if bail could be granted to one person, another in comparable circumstances should receive the same fair consideration, and any legitimate reasons for refusing bail must be properly explained and supported by law.