As Nandlall Gets Uneasy, Lawyer Speaks on Brutus’s Wife Travel
December 12 2024 – Attorney-at-law Eusi Anderson, legal representative for Adonika Aulder, issued a statement on Thursday to clarify what he described as significant public misunderstandings regarding his pregnant client’s recent travel to the United States of America for urgent medical care.
Anderson emphasised that Aulder’s actions were fully compliant with the law and dismissed allegations of impropriety as unfounded.
Attorney-at-Law Eusi Anderson
The controversy stems from an earlier High Court application, filed on October 2, 2024, in which Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus, Aulder’s husband, sought judicial review of the decision by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Andre Ally, to deny his application to travel abroad during his vacation leave.
At the time, the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), was pursuing a wide-ranging investigation against both parties for money laundering and other serious offences involving over GY$800 million, ultimately leading to charges being filed on October 24, 2024.
Anderson clarified that while the application also included Aulder, this was a procedural error, as no authority exercised jurisdiction over her movements at that time.
Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus and his wife, Adonika Aulder
On October 18, 2024, High Court Judge Gino Persaud refused Brutus’s application, citing the impending criminal charges. Anderson pointed out that the court’s order merely stated “Application refused” and did not impose any enforceable limitations on Aulder’s ability to travel.
Despite this, immigration authorities at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) cited the refusal of the application as a basis to deny Aulder permission to leave Guyana, a move Anderson described as legally unfounded.
The lawyer explained that the legal landscape shifted on October 24, 2024, when both Brutus and Aulder were arraigned for various criminal offences, bringing them under the jurisdiction of Acting Chief Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty.
He stated that under the Bail Act of Guyana, the Magistrate imposed bail conditions, including the surrender of Aulder’s passport.
On November 27, 2024, Anderson submitted a formal application to vary the bail conditions, citing urgent medical reasons and attaching supporting documentation.
During a hearing on December 5, 2024, he said Magistrate Mc Gusty exercised her statutory powers under Section 13 of the Bail Act and granted Aulder permission to travel for “urgent medical attention she desperately needed” at a New York hospital.
Anderson noted that this decision was made in compliance with the law and based on the evidence presented, including Aulder’s medical documents.
Addressing concerns about jurisdictional overreach, Anderson explained that once the High Court became functus officio—having fulfilled its role in the matter—it no longer held authority over subsequent applications related to Aulder’s movement.
Functus officio refers to an officer or agency who has performed a function or discharged a duty allocated to him and has no further status in the matter.
According to him, Magistrate Mc Gusty, who held jurisdiction in the case, acted appropriately and within the bounds of the law.
“After the High Court became functus officio on the subject of freedom of movement without a positive prohibition, the Magistrate seized exclusive jurisdiction on the movement of Aulder when Aulder’s case jackets appeared before her from 24th October, 2024 to today,” he said.
He continued: “Were it otherwise, at the date of the charge, the court would have been informed that said positive prohibition from a higher court exists to tie the hands of the Magistrate with bail conditions limiting movement. In fact, section 13(2) of the Bail Act outlines when the Magistrate shall cede jurisdiction to the High Court for variation of bail conditions.”
He said the Magistrate is best and aptly placed, since the grant of bail, to review and alter her bail conditions in any manner, in her sole discretion. “The Bail Act permits same,” Anderson noted.
“She has had, from 24th October, 2024 to 27th November, 2024, to assess Aulder’s conduct post-bail and, as an arbiter of facts, she decided based on the evidence before her, especially the medical evidence,” Anderson explained.
He reiterated that Justice Persaud’s order did not venture to circumscribe any lower court from entertaining or determining the issue of permission to travel. Anderson underscored that his client has complied fully with all legal obligations and bail conditions.
He called for public discussions on the matter to remain grounded in facts and respect for constitutional principles, including the presumption of innocence and the right to access healthcare.
“By the grace of the God in whom I repose all my trust, I hope that, in any effort to whip public opinion in a direction adverse to the actors in this chapter of the ventilation of the case at bar, the facts and law, the empowerment of women in positions of authority, and the constitutional presumption of innocence, together with the right to select one’s own healthcare provider, are not reduced to invisible footnotes” Anderson concluded.
