CJ upholds committal of Muslim scholar accused of sexual molestation

By Rehanna Ramsay Chief Justice, (ag) Ian Chang has upheld an order in which Islamic Scholar, Neezaam Ali, was committed to stand trial for sexually assaulting nine boys while they attended classes at an East Coast Demerara Masjid.

Islamic Scholar, Neezaam Ali

Neezaam Ali, also  known as ‘Mufti’,  an  Imam of Lot 268 Section ‘C 5’ South, Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown was committed to stand High Court trial since 2013 on nine counts of engaging in sexual intercourse with boys under the age of 12. According to reports, the 33-year-old Imam was alleged to have sexually assaulted the nine boys where they usually go to take Quran and Arabic lessons from him, between December 2011 and January 2012. The virtual complainants allege that Ali had penetrative anal intercourse with them while they were minors. The Muslim Scholar was charged with several counts of sexual activity with a child by abusing a position of trust and under preliminary inquiries into allegations before Magistrate Alex Moore at the Sparendaam Court. In 2013 after perusing the evidence brought before him during the preliminary inquiries, Magistrate Moore found that there was sufficient reason to send Ali for High Court trial. But Ali, through his lawyer Nigel Hughes, applied to the High Court to quash the committal. His application was made on several grounds, including that the Magistrate acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he failed to consider the expert opinion of Dr. Walter Ramsahoye, who testified that it was impossible for him to commit the act, since he is impotent. According to court documents, Dr. Ramsahoye testified that “the individual whose psychological systems are severely compromised, cannot have sex with boy, girl, man or woman as he cannot have an erection.” This statement was highlighted as the essence of Ali’s defence, one which the defence claimed was ignored by the prosecution and the Magistrate. The defence had stipulated that there was no statement provided to the court to rebut the expert’s evidence, neither did the prosecution indicate or represent to the court that they intended to call any expert witness to give a rebuttal. The defence had argued that it was in the face of these facts that Magistrate Moore ruled that a prima facie case was made out against Ali and committed him to stand trial at the subsequent sitting of the Criminal Assizes. As such, Ali’s lawyer applied to the High Court for an order or Rule of Certiorari directing  Magistrate Moore to show cause why  his decision to commit him based on the evidence should not be quashed as a decision which is ultra vires, null, void  unreasonable and without foundation in law . Responding in an sworn affidavit on behalf of Magistrate Moore, Inspector of Police Hatty David, testified that the statement laid over by the medical practitioner exceeded the specified period prescribed in paragraph (2) under the Sexual Offences Act. Consequently, the officer further claimed that Dr. Ramsahoye’s opinion was formed from information provided by Ali, and was not one which came as result of doctors treating and attending to a medical condition, which the accused suffered, over a period of time. The officer deposed that no expert evidence was adduced by the prosecution. He denied that there was a defence, since the statement of Dr. Ramsahoye was laid over outside the statutory time limit, (some seven months after the prescribed period for doing so). He therefore held that evidence of witness or expert is a question for the jury. “Although the Magistrate did not consider the statement of Dr. Ramsahoye, it was for the jury (to consider), whether his expertise, in the matter was sufficient and if so, whether they would be prepared to accept and rely on his statement,” the respondent outlined. In a ruling dated July 31, 2015 Chief Justice (CJ) Chang noted that in the view of the court, the evidence presented by the defence is not compelling enough. “This is a case in which a jury will be called upon to pass on the credibility and reliability of witnesses  for the  prosecution,  a witness   for the defence (Dr  Ramsahoye), and to choose  between  them-—bearing in mind  that there is no presumption  of acceptability  or reliability  in favour  of an expert  evidence,”  the  Judge said in the ruling. The CJ pointed out too that the Magistrate did consider Ali’s defence since on his (Ali’s) affidavit, he said that the magistrate speculated that the prosecution would bring expert witnesses to refute the evidence of Dr. Ramsahoye. Chang further noted that even if the Magistrate did not consider Ramsahoye’s statement, he was within his right to do so for the reason of procedural non- compliance; the evidence led by Ramsahoye had indeed exceeded the legally prescribed period. The Judge therefore ruled that, as such, the court does not see it fit to quash the order of committal of the Magistrate by Certiorari. Chang, for that reason ordered that Magistrate Moore be awarded $25,000 in court cost.