By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — The high-profile controversy surrounding alleged unauthorized drone activity near President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s private residence at Leonora, West Coast Demerara, formally entered the judicial system on Monday as videographer Dwayne Ross was placed on $600,000 bail after appearing before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on three aviation-related charges.
Ross, who provides media and videography services for Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, was granted bail in the sum of $200,000 on each charge by the presiding magistrate, despite formal objections from Special State Prosecutors.
The Statutory Offenses and the State’s Case
The Guyana Police Force (GPF) and the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) instituted three criminal complaints against Ross stemming from the September 3 interception along the Leonora public corridor:
- Operating Without a Permit: Operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) without a valid permit issued by the GCAA.
- Breaching Restricted Airspace: Operating an aerial device over the private residential compound of the Head of State without prior authorization.
- Nighttime Operations: Operating an unmanned aircraft at night in contravention of standing GCAA safety directives and circulars.
Defense Challenges Statutory Foundation of Directives
Appearing on behalf of Ross, Attorney-at-Law Eusi Anderson launched an aggressive challenge against the legality of the complaints, characterizing the prosecution’s case as “dubious in law” and lacking statutory authority:
- Lack of Legislative Force: Anderson submitted that administrative directives, advisory circulars, and notices issued by the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority do not carry the force of enacted parliamentary legislation or gazetted ministerial regulations, and therefore cannot serve as the lawful foundation for criminal indictments.
- Statutory Definition: The defense argued that commercial micro-drones are not clearly captured under the current statutory definitions of an aerial or unmanned aerial vehicle within the primary Civil Aviation Act.
- Absence of Operational Evidence: Anderson presented the defense’s factual account of the evening, stating that Ross was simply seated inside the back of a parked vehicle near a masjid in Leonora when police approached and announced that an illegal drone was operating in the area. The defense stressed that Ross’s physical presence inside a stationary vehicle is the total extent of the prosecution’s evidence connecting him to active flight operations.
- Political Association: The attorney submitted that his client’s primary offense appeared to be his professional association with the Leader of the Opposition.
“The directives of the Civil Aviation Authority do not carry the force of law,” Anderson submitted to the court. “A drone is not defined in the primary legislation within the meaning of an aerial or unmanned aerial vehicle as framed in these complaints. My client was seated in the back seat of a vehicle, and that was the extent of any evidence linking him to the operation of a drone. This is an unprecedented attempt to use administrative directives as the foundation for criminal charges.”
The magistrate granted Ross bail, and the matter has been adjourned for continuation later this month.
