-High Court quashes his decision to dismiss gold smuggling case, orders him to pay $50,000 to SOCU
On Thursday, 21 May 2026, the Honourable Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, granted judicial review relief in favour of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), quashing the decision of Magistrate Clive Nurse to dismiss a gold smuggling case against Brazilian national, Osmil Costa Da Silva, for want of prosecution.
The matter had been dismissed on the basis that the prosecution had failed to provide a Portuguese interpreter for Mr. Da Silva. The High Court, however, clarified that under Article 144 of the Constitution of Guyana, the responsibility to ensure that an accused person is provided with an interpreter rest with the Court.
On 25 May 2025, Mr. Da Silva appeared before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty and was charged with the offence of Possession of Gold by a Person not being a Producer, contrary to section 7(2) of the Guyana Gold Act, Chapter 66:01. On the same day, the case was adjourned and transferred to the Mahdia Magistrates’ Court before Magistrate Clive Nurse for trial.
On a subsequent date, the prosecution was informed that it was required to have a Portuguese interpreter present at the next court sitting for Mr. Da Silva.
On 23 March 2026, when the case was called for hearing, SOCU prosecutors sought to commence the prosecution’s case with the assistance of a Portuguese interpreter. Defence counsel, Ms. Latchmie Rahamat, however, objected to that interpreter being used on the basis that the interpreter had previously assisted SOCU during the investigative stage of the case and was therefore not independent. The objection was upheld, and the prosecution was directed by the Magistrate to secure another Portuguese interpreter.
When the case was again called on 20 April 2026, SOCU prosecutors appeared with several witnesses and sought an adjournment, explaining that efforts were being made to secure another interpreter, including through the Brazilian Embassy. Defence Attorney, Ms. Rahamat objected to the adjournment, contending that the matter had been fixed peremptry and that further delay would waste judicial time. His Worship, Magistrate Clive Nurse, thereafter dismissed the case for want of prosecution even though three witnesses were present in court.
SOCU subsequently filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court, seeking declarations, an order for the appointment of an independent interpreter, and an order of certiorari quashing the dismissal of the charge against Mr. Da Silva. In those proceedings, Magistrate Nurse indicated that the Court’s approach may have proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the obligation to provide an interpreter and welcomed guidance from the High Court on the proper procedure to be adopted where interpretation services are required in the Magistrates’ Court.
Chief Justice Navindra Singh in handing down the ruling of the High Court today 2026-05-21 reasoned that ‘the Learned Magistrate did not disclose a defence and, in fact, waffles between advancing a defence and conceding that the Court was obligated to provide an interpreter.’ He commented that ‘SOCU Prosecutors being present with several witnesses made it very difficult to understand how the case could have been dismissed for want of prosecution, and that it was truly disingenuous to say that though you are in a position to prosecute today, your failures to be in such readiness in the past, when I did not dismiss, will today bear down upon you.’
In granting relief, the High Court held that Article 144(2)(f) of the Constitution of Guyana makes clear that an accused person who requires an interpreter must be afforded that facility without payment, and that the responsibility to ensure that this is done rests with the Court. The dismissal was accordingly quashed, and costs were awarded in the sum of G$50,000.00 to be paid by Magistrate Clive Nurse to SOCU.
The head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh emphasise that it is unfortunate that SOCU had to resort to court action again to ensure compliance of Magistrate Clive Nurse since Magistrates should not act illegally, irrationally, arbitrarily and exercising their discretion wrongly in law, especially when justice is involved, since Magistrates are creatures of statue and are bounded to comply with statutes when exercising their discretion and statuary duties in the administration of Justice. The Deputy Commissioner further lamented that it’s disgusting and unfair that his agency SOCU has to be resorting to court action regularly against Magistrates and having their decisions being overturned by a higher court because of failure to comply with the laws they are appointed to adjudicate on.
SOCU, was represented by Attorney-at-Law Mr. David Brathwaite, and Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Darin Chan, while Magistrate Nurse was represented by State Counsels from the Attorney General’s Chambers.