This was the testimony of Superintendent of Police Frederick Caesar on Friday, when the trial of the three men resumed before Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court.

Khan, Belfield and Yahya were intercepted by a Guyana Defence Force patrol at Good Hope on December 4 and are jointly charged for the unlawful possession of firearms and the unlawful possession of ammunition.

It is alleged that they were found in possession of two M-15 rifles with a quantity of matching live rounds of ammunition, and two 9mm pistols with a quantity of matching live rounds. Belfield, who is a constable attached to the Anti-Crime Task Force unit, is also separately charged with two summary offences, being in unlawful possession of a .40 Gluck pistol and 10 matching rounds of ammunition.

Led in evidence by Police Prosecutor, Corporal Edmond Cooper, Caesar said he had interrogated the men at Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters on the morning of December 5. He said he had been told that the men, who had a quantity of firearms and ammunition, were arrested by members of the GDF at Good Hope, sometime on the night of December 4.

Caesar said he had cautioned each of the men, advising them that any information they divulged could be used as evidence at criminal proceedings.

“The number one accused, Khan, said the firearms were acquired from Franco Rodrigues... Belfield said, er, replied, [that the] firearms were for protection [and] Yahya replied, he doesn’t know about firearms and ammunition, but he is a licensed holder of a shotgun and a revolver, which the army took possession of...”

Caesar said after further inquiries were made the three were subsequently charged with the offences presently before the court.

During his cross-examination, attorney Glen Hanoman, appearing for Khan, asked Caesar if he had learnt during the course of his investigation that his client was a licensed firearm holder.

“Yes, sir.”

“And in fact, he was licensed to own and operate more than one firearm?”

“That is correct, sir.”

“Now, [during] your investigation, did it come to your attention that the firearms of [Khan] were among the lot which was in custody?”

“I can’t recall.”

“In other words, you can’t deny his firearms were part of those items?”

“No, I can’t deny.”

“I am suggesting to you that when you spoke with or questioned the number one defendant, you did not show him any firearm.”

“That is correct sir, I did not show him any firearm.”

“So, when you say [Khan] replied to you, you were not sure what firearms he was referring to when he said he purchased a firearm from Franco Rodrigues?”

“I assumed...”

“You were not conclusively informed as to what firearms he referred to? Did you clarify what firearms he referred to?”

“I did not.”

“Then, you are not in a position to deny, when he replied, he may have been referring to his personal firearms?” “Could be. It could be his personal firearms he was referring to... which were among the lot.”

“As a matter of fact, you are not in a position to say whether the firearms in this case were ever shown to the defendants?” “I would not be able to say.”

Hanoman then changed his line of questioning, asking Caesar if he could explain why the men were not immediately handed over to police when they were initially intercepted. Caesar replied he could not and Hanoman then suggested to him that it was proper procedure for the Guyana Defence Force to immediately hand over persons who were detained.

“I would say it depends on the circumstances.”

“In a case like this one, in your view, as a Senior Superintendent of Police, would you agree that the army should have handed over the men immediately and not a couple of hours afterward?”

“I would agree that the army should hand over men to the police in the shortest possible time.”

“What time were the [accused] handed over to you?

“I can’t say exactly, but very early in the morning. Maybe two, two-thirty, possibly quarter to three.”

“And hasn’t it come to your knowledge that the men were detained at about 10:30 on the previous night?”

“Yes. That is my information.” “...And was any reason advanced to you why the army kept them for about four hours?”

“No, sir.”

After Hanoman completed his examination, Belfield’s attorney Vic Puran asked Caesar if he had sought to clarify Belfield’s statement. The witness said no, adding that it would be correct to say he did not know to which firearms Belfield had made reference.

Under cross-examination, Caesar said ranks of the Police Force, once given the authority from an officer who possesses the rank of Corporal or above, may carry firearms or ammunition without a licence.

“Now, at the time of this matter, Mr. Belfield was a serving member of the Guyana Police Force?”

“Yes, sir.”

“As a matter of fact, up to the 3rd of December, 2002, Mr. Belfield was in a unit of the police force that constituted the spear against banditry? His unit carried the brunt of the attack against the bandits.”

“That is absolutely correct, sir.”

In response to a query by Puran about how many policemen had been killed by this time, the witness conceded that it would be correct to say several.

“You will agree with me that the lives of members of Belfield’s unit were at greater risk than other members of the Police Force?”

“Yes, sir.”

“I am suggesting to you, sir, that Mr. Belfield’s unit had about ten persons who had the capacity to authorise Belfield to carry firearms and ammunition, without a licence.”

“There were several persons in his unit.”

Puran after this answer completed his cross-examination. Yahya, who was unrepresented at Friday’s hearing declined cross-examination of Caesar, while the Police Prosecutor declined re-examination.