Chief Justice Ian Chang has granted an Order Nisi sought by Attorney at law Mursaline Bacchus compelling Magistrate Adela Nagamootoo to refer a matter to the High Court.The prominent attorney had moved to the High Court after serving a notice on the magistrate and citing certain authority that she should refer same to the High Court. The magistrate had refused and the lawyer thus moved to the High Court.The matter in contention is the police versus James  Ramlochan called ?Ribs?,[url=http://www.wholesalenfljerseyssale.us@#$%&/]Wholesale Jerseys[/url], a butcher of Station Street, Reliance Village, East Canje, Berbice,[url=http://www.jerseysthrowback.us/]Throwback Jerseys[/url], who is charged with unlawful possession of  a carcass, which is being tried before Magistrate Nagamootoo at the Reliance Magistrate?s Court.Mr. Bacchus is contending that the section under which his client is charged is unconstitutional as it contravenes his constitutional rights, under article 144(2) (a) of the Constitution.The Attorney also in his notice to the magistrate had asked her to pay attention to Section 94(1) of Chapter 8:02 which in part reads ?everyone charged before the court with having in his possession,[url=http://www.chinanfljerseysauthentic.us@#$%&/]Cheap NFL Jerseys China[/url], or under his control, in any manner or in any place, anything which is reasonably suspected to be stolen or unlawfully obtained, which does not give an account, to the satisfaction of the court,[url=http://www.salecheapjerseys.us@#$%&/]NFL Jerseys Cheap[/url], as to how he came thereby, shall be liable to a fine of five hundred dollars or to imprisonment of six months.?Mr. Bacchus is submitting that the unconstitutionality is obvious in that the burden of proof that is cast on his client under Section 94(1) is directly in contravention of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 144(2) of the constitution.The Attorney had also submitted that the constitution is the Supreme law of the land and any other law which is inconsistent with it is deemed, as far as such inconsistency is concern, to be void as stated in Article 8.Mr. Bacchus had thus requested that the magistrate before proceeding any further with the trial, refer the question of unconstitutionality or otherwise of section 94 to the High Court as is provided for under article 153(3) of the constitution which reads: ??If in any proceedings of any court subordinate to the high court any question arises as to the contravention of any of the provision of articles 138 to 151 (inclusive),[url=http://www.cheapjerseysauthenticonline.us@#$%&/]Jerseys China Wholesale[/url], the person presiding in that court shall refer the question to the high court unless, in his opinion, the rising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious.?The lawyer in his petition to the High Court had stated that the magistrate had on or about the 16th of June ruled that she would not refer the question to the High Court. The lawyer is claiming that the matter is neither frivolous nor vexatious and in other words the magistrate refused to perform the absolute duty cast upon her by Article 153(3) of the constitution.In his ruling, the Chief Justice ruled that it is ordered Nisi for a writ of Mandamus be and is hereby granted directing her worship the magistrate Adela Nagamootoo sitting at the Reliance magistrate court to appear before him on the 27th August at 14:00 hrs at the High Court of the Supreme court of Judicature of Guyana to show cause why the writ or order of Mandamus should not be made absolute, compelling her to refer the matter under question to the High Court.?In continuing,[url=http://www.cheapjerseysshare.us@#$%&/]NFL Jerseys Supply[/url], the Chief Justice ordered that a sealed and certified copy of the notice of motion with affidavit in support, together with a copy of the order be served on the magistrate.