Court dismisses Brutus’ abuse of process application

Chief Magistrate (acting) Faith McGusty today dismissed former Assistant Commissioner of Police (Administration), Mr Calvin Brutus’ Abuse of Process Application on the basis that the extant criminal (fraud) charges, when compared to the previously-determined disciplinary charges, were different in scope, nature, and penalty.

Hence, the court found that Mr Brutus’s Abuse of Process Application must fail.

In October and November 2024, Brutus was charged with 252 counts of criminal offences relating to Money Laundering, Fraud, and other serious related financial crimes, which are extant and ongoing in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.

On December 4, 2025, the defence filed an application seeking orders of the Magistrate’s Court for the joinder of various categories of fraud charges against Brutus and for the consolidation of several offences into single omnibus counts. The prosecution contended that it was not averse to the joinder of several offences, where it is justified by law and promotes the fair and efficient administration of justice.

On January 22, 2026, Brutus filed another interim application seeking an order of the Magistrate’s Court to stay certain fraud charges on the ground of abuse of process.

The Defence submitted that the criminal fraud charges amounted to an abuse of process since the said charges were premised on the same facts which were the subject of two disciplinary charges instituted against Mr Brutus pursuant to Section 4(z) of the Police (Discipline) Act, Cap 17:01, and which resulted in his subsequent dismissal from the Guyana Police Force.

The prosecution, however, argued that though the Court was undoubtedly possessed an inherent jurisdiction to protect its process from abuse by granting a stay, the power of the magistrate to stay proceedings for abuse of process should be utilised sparingly and that, in any event, the current circumstances did not warrant the Court exercising its discretion since it is trite law that disciplinary proceedings do not, without more, bar the institution or continuation of criminal charges as they are administrative in nature, while criminal charges are in persona, against the State.

The prosecution argued that the two processes were distinct in nature, purpose, and consequence, and their concurrent or sequential operation is fully consistent with Guyana’s statutory and constitutional framework.

With this, the prosecution reasoned that Brutus’ application does not meet the high legal threshold required to invoke the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and that the continuation of the present proceedings would neither undermine fairness nor bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Essentially, the prosecution argued that the defence had failed to establish any real prejudice, oppression, or abuse of process on the part of the prosecution in instituting the extant criminal charges and that the said abuse of process application was ill-founded, misconceived, unmeritorious, and ought to be dismissed in its entirety. The Court, accordingly, agreed with the prosecution and dismissed Brutus’s Abuse of Process Application.

On Thursday, Magistrate McGusty ruled that the two counts of money laundering laid indictably against Brutus and his wife, Adonika Aulder, will proceed indictably via paper committal.

The Prosecution is represented by Prosecutors and Attorneys-at-Law, David Brathwaite, Darin Chan, Muntaz Ali, and Natasha Backer, while the Defence is represented by Attorneys-at-Law, Eusi Anderson, Yuborn Allicock, and Earl Daniels, among others.