Muslim scholar appeals “severe” sentence for rape of boy, 9,

Apr 02, 2019 News

---

 

By Feona Morrison

Lawyers for Muslim scholar Neezam Ali, who was convicted and sentenced to 45 years imprisonment two weeks ago for raping a nine year-old boy, have filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence with the Court of Appeal in Kingston, Georgetown.
In the appeal filed last week Tuesday, March 26, by lawyers Latchmie Rahamat and Glenn Hanoman, Ali argues that the sentence imposed on him by Justice Navindra Singh was too severe in all the circumstances of the case.
According to the lawyers, “The learned trial judge utilized a mathematical formula in passing the sentence of 45 years that is without legal basis and failed to take into account established sentencing guidelines and passed a sentence that was inconsistent with the current sentencing practice.”
It is the lawyers’ contention that in passing sentence, the trial judge failed to explore the possibility of ordering a probation report and to take other relevant factors into consideration. It is their view that counsel (Stanley Moore) who represented Ali during the trial, failed to adequately mitigate the sentence.
Arguing that there was bias on the part of a juror, the lawyers have argued that, “There was a real possibility that a bias of a member of the jury affected the impartiality of the jury and the fairness of the trial and the failure of the juror to disclose that he attempted to forcefully shut down the Masjid run by (Ali) shortly after his arrest, constituted to a material irregularity at the (Ali’s) trial, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”

 

In relation to the above ground, Ali, in his Notice of Appeal, said he desires to call one Robin Andrews of Lot 303 Section ‘D’ Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown as a witness. Andrews had testified during the trial.
The lawyers further argued, “Contrary to Article 144 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana the learned trial judge (Navindra Singh) erred in law when he refused to accede to the request of the appellant for a short adjournment to ensure the attendance of the legal representative of his own choice, Ms. Latchmie Rahamat, who was lead counsel for the appellant, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. That on the date fixed for trial, Ms. Rahamat was undergoing a major surgical procedure.”
Ali’s lawyers are calling for the verdict of the jury to be set aside on the ground that Justice Singh failed to put his case adequately to the jury and misdirected the jury with regard to the medical evidence presented in his defence. In this regard, the lawyers are contending that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable with respect to the evidence adduced at the trial.
Furthermore, the lawyers have argued that the right of their client to a fair trial was irretrievably and adversely affected by the failure of counsel to take full instructions from Ali and to thereafter object, among other things, to the admission of evidence of prejudicial nature, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice to the prejudice of him.
On March 14, last, Justice Singh sentenced Ali to imprisonment after a 12-member jury found him unanimously guilty of the crime. Between December 5, 2011 and December 31, 2011, he engaged in sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 by abusing a position of trust while being an Imam at a Turkeyen Masjid.
It is alleged that the act occurred in a storeroom located in the Masjid and then at Ali’s home. In passing sentence, Justice Singh underscored that based on the evidence, it was clear that Ali took advantage of an underprivileged child. The Judge also took into consideration where the act occurred and the fact that Ali smiled at the victim who had pointed him out in court.
Some seven years ago, Ali, also known as ‘Mufti’, whose last known address is said to be at South Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown, was charged after it was alleged that he raped nine boys, who took Quran and Arabic lessons from him. The victims alleged that Ali had penetrative anal intercourse with them while they were attending classes at the Masjid.
Following a preliminary inquiry before Magistrate Alex Moore, Ali was committed to stand trial for the offences in 2013. Shortly after Ali’s committal in 2013, his then lawyer, Nigel Hughes, filed an action in the High Court to have the committal overturned. However, this was rejected by the court.
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 Ali to commit the act, since he is impotent.
This statement was the essence of Ali’s defence, one which he claimed was ignored by the prosecution and the Magistrate.
But Magistrate Moore noted that police witness, Inspector Hatty David, testified that Dr. Ramsahoye’s opinion was formed from information provided by Ali, and was not one which came as a result of doctors treating and attending to a medical condition, which Ali reportedly suffered, over a period of time.
However, in 2017, the matter was sent back to the Magistrates’ Court based on a directive from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Then, it was reported that the medical reports and birth certificates of the nine boys involved in the case had allegedly disappeared.
In addition to remitting the matter to Magistrate Alex Moore to re-open the paper committals, the DPP also issued a directive to the Guyana Police Force to obtain certified copies of the original documents. Kaieteur News understands that those files were reconstructed.
The following year, Magistrate Moore, again committed Ali to stand trial.
Ali is still to be tried for eight more counts of child rape at the next session of the Demerara Criminal Assizes, which opens this morning at the High Court in Georgetown, according to information published by the DPP.

 

---

---