DPP denies Kwayana’s contentions, wants motion dismissed
Stabroek News
October 4, 2002
DPP Dennis Hanomansingh has replied in an affidavit to the motion filed by lawyers for Eusi Kwayana asking him to defend his decision to withdraw murder charges against Senior Superintendent Steve Merai for his alleged role in the death of Buxtonian Shaka Blair.
The motion to show why a writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing Hanomansingh’s decision to withdraw and discontinue the private criminal charge filed by Kwayana is scheduled to come up for hearing on October 30 in the High Court.
In an affidavit supporting his motion, Kwayana, who is represented by Senior Counsel Peter Britton and attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes and Arif Bulkan, had said that Merai shot and killed Buxtonian Shaka Blair at point blank range under unprovoked circumstances and while the victim was unarmed. Kwayana’s affidavit asserted that when police arrived at the scene on April 6 this year, there were no weapons or explosive devices at Blair’s residence and that the police gained forced entry into the victim’s home. The affidavit stated too that a letter addressed to the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and delivered at his chambers informing him (Hanomansingh) that Kwayana possessed evidence in the form of statements of witnesses to Blair’s killing and that same could be made available to him at his request, received no response.
Hanomansingh’s affidavit denied having ignored Kwayana’s letter and stated that after receiving same, “I (Hanomansingh) caused Inspector Deonarine on April 26 to make contact with the applicant in an effort to obtain names and addresses of any witnesses that he may have had so statements could be taken from them or alternatively, that the applicant bring the witnesses to the Criminal Investigations Department, Eve Leary so that statements could be taken from them”.
Hanomansingh’s affidavit said that statements taken on April 6th and 8th by Deputy Superintendent B.Cummings and Police Constable Major, respectively did not implicate Merai or any other rank from the party which visited Blair’s home on the day in question, since the wife stated that she did not see who fired the shots.
“I am informed by the said police officers ....that upon entering the house of the deceased, the police party found that the occupants had locked themselves within a bedroom, which they were again requested to open after further identification by members of the police party who again informed them of the search warrant. The door of the said bedroom was flung open and a woman, later identified as being the reputed wife of the deceased clutching a child ran from within towards the police party, then proceeded to the east side of the house.
The deceased appeared suddenly with a gun in his hand and discharged a round in the direction of the police party, when a member of the police party, not Senior Superintendent Stephen Merai discharged two rounds at the deceased in self defence ...”
Further that additional investigation at the scene was hampered by hostile relatives and residents. He also said that a letter had been read out at the Vigilance Magistrate’s Court where Kwayana’s private criminal charge was to be heard, stating that the Office and Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions was taking over the criminal proceedings and were therefore discontinuing the criminal proceedings brought by Kwayana as permitted by Article 187 of the Constitution. Hanomansingh noted that the office of the DPP subsequently advised that an inquest be held into the death of Blair.