Army didn't tell trio they were not under arrest -witness
By Andre Haynes
Stabroek News
April 26, 2003
When detained at Good Hope by army ranks after having allegedly been found with a large arms cache, Shaheed Khan, Haroon Yahya and Sean Belfield were never informed that they had not been arrested.
This was the testimony of GDF Major Fitzroy Warde while under-cross-examination by attorney Vic Puran at the Sparendaam Magistrate's Court yesterday, where the trial of the three men continued before Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney.
According to the charges, on December 4 at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara, Khan, Yahya and Belfield were found in unlawful possession of a quantity of high-powered firearms and ammunition. Belfield, a police officer, is also charged individually for two summary offences, being in unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. Attorneys for the men are Puran, along with attorneys Glen Hanoman and Nigel Hughes.
Major Warde said he was the Officer-in-charge of the GDF Operation on the East Coast during the time of the defendants' detention.
According to Warde's testimony under cross-examination, on the night when the men were held, their arrest was effected by Senior Superintendent of Police Cedric Caesar of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID).
Puran asked: "So these men were merely detained by the army?"
"Yes, sir," Major Warde responded.
"Were they in a position to leave the company of the army?"
"No. They were not."
"That is because the army utilised the force of arms to keep them detained..." Puran suggested.
"No. The army utilised its authority to keep them detained."
"Didn't they point guns at the defendants?"
"Yes."
"Weapons were trained on the defendants to keep them on the ground and those weapons contained live rounds..."
"Yes they contained live rounds."
"And your ranks were ready to respond to a command to open fire if it was given?"
"I would say yes."
"Did you personally tell any of the three men that they were not under arrest?"
"No, I did not."
"Even though you knew that they were not under arrest?"
"Yes."
"You agree that you were not acting fairly in that regard?"
"No. I wouldn't agree. They were told they were being detained."
Asked whether, if he had to do it all over again, he would have told the men that they were not under arrest, Major Warde said no.
Earlier when asked whether during his 19 years in the Army, he had handled weapons such as those allegedly found in the men's possession, Major Warde said he was familiar with some of the calibres and types since the rank of private. Those he specified were the semi-automatic pistol and the automatic rifle. Questioned as to whether he ever had a licence to carry a rifle, he said no, though he said he lawfully carried and used one while being a member of the GDF. Upon the assertion that this was so because the weapon was carried and used by virtue of permission from a senior officer, Major Warde said yes.
Developing his argument further, Puran estimated that the Guyana Police Force equivalent of the army's Second Lieutenant would be an Assistant Superintendent and asked:
"Do you know officer [Steve] Merai, personally?"
"Yes, I know him personally."
"He was a Senior Superintendent of Police... sorry, he is a Senior Superintendent of Police."
"I am not au fait with his rank, I thought he was a Superintendent."
At this point Puran proposed to Major Warde that it could be concluded that had Merai been in the army he would have been of the seniority to authorise ranks to carry firearms, to which the army Major agreed. The Major when asked whether he knew that Merai at that time was the Commanding Officer of the Anti-Crime Task Force (labelled the Target Special Squad), he again responded in the affirmative.
"Now tell me something, when in the army and an officer authorises you to use a weapon and you go out in the field, they don't need to go out with you and say `Warde, you still have the authority?'"
Major Warde explained that this authority was delegated for a specific time and purpose which he said, when challenged by Puran, was not limited to one day.
The hearing is to continue on May 9.
