Guyanese man awarded $75,000 over unlawful detention in The Bahamas

A Guyanese man has been awarded $75,000 in damages after being unlawfully detained in The Bahamas for 102 days under “degrading and inhumane conditions,” a Supreme Court judge has ruled. The decision, delivered by Justice Loren Klein, comes after years of legal proceedings examining the circumstances of Feizal Khan’s arrest, detention, and prosecution for alleged bribery offences in 2006 and 2007.

Khan, a citizen of Guyana, initially entered The Bahamas under the name Umkan Roopnarine, though the court noted that his use of a false identity did not affect the proceedings. He was first arrested on January 12, 2006, in New Providence on suspicion of bribery and held at the Central Police Station before being transferred to Her Majesty’s Fox Hill Prison. He remained in detention until April 25, 2006, when the Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus, declaring that his detention up to that point was unlawful.

Upon his release, Khan was re-arrested the same day and charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and bribery, each on two counts under the Prevention of Bribery Act. He was remanded to HMP by the Magistrate’s Court and remained in custody until his acquittal on May 21, 2007. The prosecution was brought by the Attorney General’s Office, which provided the formal fiat to prosecute Khan for bribery offences on the day of his re-arrest. The court noted that the prosecution followed interviews with Khan and other individuals, including immigration officers and Defence Force personnel, and was based on information gathered in an investigation into a scheme that allegedly involved bribing officials to facilitate his illegal entry into the United States.

The respondents—the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Immigration, the Superintendent of H.M. Prisons, and the Attorney General, represented by Kirkland Mackey and Raquel Whyms—argued that the second arrest and subsequent detention were lawful. They contended that Khan had been arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed criminal offences, that proper procedures were followed during the second arrest, and that the Attorney General’s fiat legitimized the prosecution. They strongly denied any malicious intent and argued that the prosecution had reasonable and probable cause to charge Khan.

The court record also highlighted Khan’s prior encounters with immigration authorities. He had previously been refused entry to The Bahamas in November 2005 and deported, and had subsequently entered under a false identity in December 2005. During this time, he had prior criminal convictions in the United States, including possession of a silencer, distribution of cocaine, and firearm offences, for which he served prison time and was deported to Guyana in 2005. Khan allegedly sought to re-enter the United States illegally, prompting the bribery-related charges upon his 2006 arrival in The Bahamas.

Justice Klein found that Khan’s first detention from January 12 to April 25, 2006, was unlawful due to procedural irregularities, including failure to bring him before a court and a defective deportation order. He was awarded $75,000 for false imprisonment during this period. The second arrest from April 25, 2006, to May 21, 2007, was deemed lawful, as the authorities had rectified procedural defects, obtained the Attorney General’s fiat, and acted on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Khan’s claim for malicious prosecution was therefore rejected, as there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution. While Khan’s constitutional claims under Articles 15(a), 17(1), 19(1)(3), and 28(1) were considered, the court dismissed them on the grounds that adequate legal remedies already existed under the law.

Khan’s affidavits described inhumane and degrading conditions in detention. He was confined in a six-by-nine-foot cell with five other inmates, though the space was designed for only two, with no beds or toilet facilities, enduring extended confinement and unsanitary conditions that worsened his health due to diabetes. The court emphasized that damages for unlawful detention should be assessed in the round, taking into account the shock, loss of liberty, and harsh conditions rather than a rigid per diem rate.

Khan was deported to Guyana on May 24, 2007, following his acquittal. In addition to the $75,000 award, interest will apply to this amount at a rate of 6.25 percent from the date of the filing of the Motion (as converted to a writ) to judgment, and thereafter at the statutory rate until payment. Justice Klein also took into consideration that Khan was unsuccessful in the claim for false imprisonment for the second (and significantly longer) period, that several of the constitutional claims were misconceived, and that a claim for malicious prosecution was made without any reasonable basis. As a result, he awarded Khan 50 percent of his legal costs. (Eyewitness News)