Court adjourns Charles Bissue's judicial review application
The Human Rights Court, on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, deferred the judicial review application filed by Charles Bissue against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to January 15, 2024.
Advertisement
Mr. Bissue seeks to challenge an arrest warrant issued by the OSP on or around June 7, 2023, alleging that it was obtained through deceptive means. He contends that the OSP provided false information to secure the warrant.
Below is the case update provided by the OSP after the court hearing:
CASE UPDATE
CHARLES BISSUE v. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
On 15 June 2023, the Human Rights Court granted a motion ex parte for interim injunction filed by Charles Bissue restraining the OSP from enforcing a purported arrest warrant. The Court injuncted the OSP from arresting Charles Bissue for ten (10) days.
Subsequently, the OSP filed its affidavit in opposition to the substantive application and recounted in paragraphs 21 – 23 thereof that the purported arrest warrant the Court injuncted does not exist and that Charles Bissue had misled the Court in the ex parte application into believing its existence.
The paragraphs further stated that Charles Bissue’s misrepresentations to the Court stemmed from his mere suspicion of the existence of an arrest warrant he claimed was issued on or around 7 June 2023.
Consequently, the Court was misled to injunct a non-existent warrant.
On 6 December 2023 when the case came up for hearing, the Judge took umbrage at the said paragraphs 21 – 23 of the affidavit in opposition of the OSP as scandalous depositions made against the Court. He proceeded to strike them out on this ground.
The OSP states that the said paragraphs 21–23 of its affidavit in opposition do not amount to scandalous depositions against the Court but rather a simple and reasonable statement of fact that the purported arrest warrant referred to by Charles Bissue does not exist and that Charles Bissue misled the Court into believing the existence of a non-existent document.
In effect, had the Court not been misled into believing the existence of a non-existent document, it would not have issued injunctive orders against a non-existent document. This is not a reflection on the Judge or the Court.
END.