tidings
Piarco International Airport. –
FORMER Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, his wife Oma, former minister Carlos John and businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh have failed in their bid to stop the resumption of their decades-old preliminary investigation into bribery allegations arising from the Piarco airport expansion project .
They had resisted every attempt by the prosecution to postpone the case further.
On Friday, Magistrate Adia Mohammed rejected a request by the four to dismiss the case due to abuse. All four had resisted the prosecution’s request for an adjournment, demanding their dismissal and opposing any further delay.
In July, the State, represented by Deputy DPP George Busby, sought an adjournment to receive further instructions from DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, on how to proceed with the preliminary investigation of Piarco III, after Mohammed said she received the authorization to start the case all over again.
DPP Roger Gaspard –
The case has been referred periodically to the Port of Spain magistrate’s court since it was placed on Mohammed’s docket in 2019, after it was assigned to the first court, which mainly hears fraud cases.
It now comes up for hearing on September 22 for case management.
The Pandays were charged with corruptly obtaining money, while John and Galbaransingh were charged with corruptly giving £25,000 to the couple.
John and Galbaransingh were accused of giving the money to Panday as an inducement or reward in connection with the Piarco airport expansion project.
The Pandays and others were charged in 2005.
A preliminary inquiry began before former senior judge Ejenny Espinet on May 31, 2006, and on February 12, 2008, the defendants requested that she recuse herself after they said they had received information that Espinet was a trustee and treasurer of the Morris Marshall Development Foundation and therefore, would be biased against them because of its alleged close ties with the People’s National Movement (PNM).
Former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday –
Legal challenges based on apparent prejudice were dismissed and the case continued before Espine until she retired in 2018, leaving it partially litigated.
In their motion challenging its reopening, John and Galbaransingh argued that the prosecution had four years — after an appeal in the case was suspended to consider its options; that it was grossly unfair and grossly wrong for the decades-long matter to remain before the court and the cost to the justice system to pursue it.
They argued that continuing the prosecution after 17 years would amount to oppression and the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of court process given the state’s inexcusable and inordinate delay.
It was further argued that nothing prevented the chief magistrate from ordering the case to be reopened immediately after Espinet retired in January 2018.
Charles John-
They also argued that their constitutional rights to a fair trial would be prejudiced.
In delivering a lengthy ruling, Mohammed outlined the history of the case, admitting that four years had passed inexplicably, but said she was unable to establish that it was due to any ill-intent on the part of the state.
She also mentioned the Covid19 pandemic, which affected the normal operations of the court, and said, bearing in mind the main objective of dealing with all criminal cases fairly, “I am therefore satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the delay complained of has not resulted in prejudice to the applicants so that it can be claimed that they cannot have a fair trial.
“I am also satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the continued prosecution of the applicants is not unconscionable, oppressive and an abuse of the court’s process.
See also
“…I do not find that this case falls into the category of exceptional and rare circumstances where the court should exercise its discretion to order a stay of proceedings on the basis of delay.”
She further stated, “This case concerns the charges against both applicants under the May 2005 Prevention of Corruption Act involving state funds.
Former Galbaransingh –
“There is therefore an important public interest in bringing the accused persons to justice.”
She also mentioned that Panday was the prime minister and Oma his wife on the date of the alleged offense so “public interest considerations are relevant to my determination of the application before this court for the fair dealing of this matter”.
The charges against the former prime minister were related to broader charges against several businessmen and businesses. In total, there are four related investigations, none of which have gone to trial.
On June 29, Gaspard said it was his position that “taking Piarco I to trial would have been oppressive if not legally objectionable, while other issues related to the airport project were in train, given that there were common accused in both sets of cases.”
Instead, he said: “A joint trial of the charges in Piarco No I and those arising out of those other cases was desirable.”
Two days earlier, the Privy Council ruled that a complaint by the accused accused in Piarco I, of apparent bias against then-Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls, was sufficient to overturn their obligation to stand trial. Gaspard said he must now consider the future of this case.
Gaspard also said he felt compelled to advise citizens that, “the decision of the Judiciary Committee does not concern other matters outside of those involving Piarco No I.”
The London court’s decision followed a ruling by a US judge disqualifying Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, and US law firm Sequor Law from a multi-million dollar civil asset forfeiture case related to the same airport project, based on of Armour’s previous work as a lawyer for one of the accused, former minister Brian Kuei Tung. Sequor Law’s disqualification is under appeal in the US.
