SOCU refutes reports that it withholds evidence in Calvin Brutus’ case

See full statement from the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU):

The Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU) wishes to reject the allegations contained in a news article published by Demerara Waves on Friday 7^th March, 2025 that SOCU Prosecutors “appear to have withheld evidence that seem to be in favour of former Assistant Commissioner of Police”.

From the outset, no reporter was in Court when the case was called yesterday, 6^th March 2025, before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty. It is clear that Defence Counsel contacted Demerara Waves and deliberately concocted a story without affording the Prosecution the right of a hearing. This lawyer has been repeatedly accused of similar conduct in the recent past.

At the hearing yesterday, Defence Counsel for Mr. Brutus produced, for the first time, a letter addressed to the Court requesting disclosure of over 50 statements which he claims to be in the possession of the Prosecution. The statements to which Defence Counsel refers are either non-existent or have already been disclosed in other matters concerning the over 200 charges for financial crimes against Mr. Brutus. All statements in the Prosecution’s possession which are relevant to the specific charge in the matter before the Court yesterday have been disclosed by the Prosecution to the Defence several weeks ago.

This is a clear fishing expedition on the part of the Defence to bolster their case in the public domain and a crass attempt at seeking cheap publicity by Defence Counsel. The Defence cannot direct the conduct of investigations in these proceedings by demanding, through a letter to the Court, or any other means, that SOCU takes statements from persons of their choice.

The Prosecution is well aware of its legal and ethical duty to disclose all relevant evidence, even where it could potentially be favourable to the Defence, and strongly refutes any allegations and imputations to the contrary.

Finally, the article misleads the reader into believing that the reduced reporting conditions on the accused are the result of the disclosure requests by Defence Counsel. Again, this is a misrepresentation. The Court reduced the conditions on an oral application by Counsel for Asif Zafarali, Mr. Everton Lammy, due to the frequency with which that accused is required to be at court for the multiple charges. Counsel for Mr. Brutus simply piggy-backed on this application, after the Court granted Mr. Zafarali’s request.

Like the Prosecution, Defence Counsel has a duty to uphold the ethics and standards of the legal profession. Mr. Brutus’ team has been consistently and woefully falling short of these basic standards.