I was impressed with the alacrity with which the Guyana Bar Association sought to defend by implication the expletive laden rant by Berbician Attorney-at-Law Ryan Crawford when he was stopped by a policeman recently. Conveniently, the Bar Association avoided naming its member because “the matter is under investigation”, while at the same time repeated Crawford’s misleading statement to the effect that “a motorist can only be stopped by a uniformed police officer for due cause if he has formed the reasonable suspicion in his mind that an offence has been committed.” Moreover, the Bar Association issued a veiled threat to the police officer, and the general public, over the sharing and posting of [obscene] recordings on social media.
No question that any citizen, even those without an expletive middle name, has the right to inquire from the police officer of the reason for his being stopped. But that must be done politely and respectfully, even if firmly. After all, there are some awful police officers, as there are in any vocation or profession, including the legal profession.
Now, are Crawford and the Bar Association correct that there is only one circumstance or situation in which a police officer can stop any person? The answer is no. The Constitution of Guyana sets out in Article 148 Protection of Freedom of Movement, a number of exceptions to the general protection including in the interest of defence, public safety or public order …” Crawford and the Bar Association must be aware too of the case in The Bahamas (Smith v Commissioner of Police), in which the Court ruled on a similar provision, that the erection of barriers across the road is prima facie a breach of the right to freedom of movement, but that such a breach was justifiable as being in the interest of public order.
Mr. Crawford and the Bar Association must also be aware of section 43 (3) of the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act of Guyana which provides as follows:
(3) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall stop the vehicle on being so required by any member of the police force in uniform, and if he fails so to do shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine of not less than seven thousand five hundred dollars nor more than fifteen thousand dollars.
And that section 23 (2) of the same Act permits a police officer to demand that a driver of a motor vehicle, or a person supervising a driver, produce his licence for inspection.
And that section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) provides that:
Any person driving a motor vehicle on a public road shall, on being so required by any member of the police force, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle and produce his certificate
Having looked at the video, I can only conclude that attorney-at-law Mr. Crawford should consider himself extremely lucky to have avoided being arrested and charged on the spot for a number of offences. His type of conduct, which requires condemnation rather than condonation, however subtle, undermines the rule of law, and the order in our society which can no doubt survive several days without lawyers. Just try having no police for one day and see the chaos, and worse, that will follow.
As a former President of the Bar Association, may I respectfully suggest that there are far more important issues for the Bar Association’s engagement, such as the constant threats to our democracy and the rule of law.