THE Director of Public Prosections (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack has broken silence following a report from the Ombudsman’s Office seeking to implicate her in the ‘alleged victimisation’ of former New Building Society (NBS) Director, Maurice Arjoon. 

DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack

Ms. Hack, in a statement to the media, strongly condemned assertions by former NBS Director, Arjoon in an article “Case of $69M fraud NBS managers suffered ‘grave injustice’- Ombudsman” appearing in Stabroek News on November 13, 2014 where it was said that the DPP was quickly appointed by then President Bharrat Jagdeo after “the DPP wrongfully charged me [Arjoon] and the two managers…”
The DPP however denounced the statement saying she was “both appointed to act and subsequently confirmed as DPP by the Judicial Service Commission, not the President.” She stressed that her appointment was “the first DPP in Guyana to have been appointed as DPP by the Judicial Service Commission.”
The 2001 Constitutional amendments made provisions which removed the power of the President to appoint persons to the office of the Director of Public Prosecution. That responsibility, according to Article 203 (2) of the Constitution was given to the Judicial Services Commission, where the Commission can both place someone to act and confirm the appointment of that person to the position.
On another matter, the DPP responded to a similar claim that she had acted to make charges against Arjoon and his colleagues with “insufficient evidence” of their criminal involvement. A claim which the DPP responded to saying she “reviewed all statements in the police file and found that there was strong and compelling evidence to institute charges against the employees as advised.”
A stalling point for three and a half years, the case against Arjoon and others was dismissed since the victim, Bibi Shamila nee Safi Khan had migrated to Canada. The DPP made it clear that her office was not responsible “for the fact that the victim did not attend court to testify against these persons.”
“What the DPP did was to give legal advice, based on the evidence in the police file and the Laws of Guyana, which I am constitutionally bound to do,” the DPP’s statement read, adding: “No person can challenge this act of the DPP except a court of law and only where there is evidence that the DPP acted contrary to the Constitution or statute.”
Following the dismissal of the case, Maurice Arjoon filed against the DPP Shalimar Ali Hack in the High Court claiming that she had abused her office in administering charges to the defendants.
The DPP in her statement confirmed that this was so, “such a challenge was done and the High Court of Guyana via Justice Dawn Gregory did not find that the DPP acted contrary to the Constitution or statute by advising the Police to institute the charges, but rather acted in accordance with the law.”
The Office of the Ombudsman was filled earlier this year by attorney-at-law and former High Court Judge, Winston Moore. The office had not been filled for eight years prior to Moore’s appointment.
The Ombudsman under articles 191 through 196 of the Constitution is expected to investigate all matters relating to complaints by citizens against Government departments and their officials.
The DPP on this ground has challenged the intervention by the Ombudsman in a matter which did not involve a Government agency or official. “While the Ombudsman’s functions are expressly stated in Article 192 and 193 of the Constitution, Article 193,” she said, “specifically states the excluded matters of the Ombudsman.”
“Further, based on the newspapers’ writings, the Ombudsman used an incomplete file to make his report, yet, uncannily, he was able to pronounce that the persons have suffered grave injustice when they were charged,” the DPP questioned.