URGENT-DPP discontinues case against the former prime minister

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Senior Counsel, Roger Gaspard, Monday withdrew the 17-year-old corruption case against former prime minister Basdeo Panday and several other people, including his wife, Oma, saying the prosecution would be unable to secure a conviction

Apart from the Pandays, the others before the court were former minister Carlos John and businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh.

Gaspard told Magistrate Adia Mohammed that discontinuing the decades-old Piarco inquiry was because he needed to be convinced of securing a conviction.

“I have looked at these proceedings, and I am of the view that having regard to the fact that several of our key witnesses have now become unavailable, and bearing in mind, My Lady, my guiding yardsticks, those being whether or not in the circumstances, to prosecute this matter, or in the prosecution of this matter there will be a fair prospect of conviction,” Gaspard said.

He told the court that he had also considered “whether to prosecute this matter, if, on the evidence, there is a fair prospect of conviction such that prosecution will be in the public interest, I have decided to go no further with this matter.”

Last September, the magistrate had dismissed an application by the four for their matter to be discharged after the State asked for an adjournment to determine the way forward when the magistrate said she had received authorization to start the case afresh.

Mohammed took over the matter in 2019.

The Pandays were charged with corruptly receiving money. John and Galbaransingh were charged with corruptly giving the couple £25,000 (One British pound = 1.20 cents).

John and Galbaransingh were accused of giving Panday the money as an inducement or reward for the Piarco airport expansion project.

The Pandays and the others were charged in 2005.

The charges against the former prime minister were linked to more expansive charges against several businessmen and businesses. There are four related inquiries, none of which has gone to trial.

A preliminary inquiry began before former senior magistrate Ejenny Espinet on May 31, 2006. Still, on February 12, 2008, the defendants asked her to recuse herself because she was a trustee and treasurer of the Morris Marshall Development Foundation and, as a result, would be biased against them because of her alleged close connections with the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM) of which the late Marshall was a member.

Legal challenges based on apparent bias were dismissed, and the case continued before Espinet until she retired in 2018.

In their application resisting its restart, John and Galbaransingh argued the prosecution had four years – after an appeal in the matter was discontinued – to consider its options, that it was grossly unfair and egregiously wrong to have the decades-old case remain before the court and the cost to the justice system of having it continued.

They argued the continuation of the prosecution after 17 years would amount to oppression, and the proceedings ought to stop as an abuse of the process of the court, having regard to the inexcusable and inordinate delay by the State.

They also argued that nothing prevented the chief magistrate from ordering the matter should be restarted soon after Espinet retired in January 2018. In addition, the men argued their constitutional rights to a fair trial would be prejudiced.

In giving a lengthy ruling, Mohammed said the delay they complained of did not result in any prejudice to them, nor was their continued prosecution “excessive, oppressive or misuse of the process of the court.

“…I do not find that this case falls into the category of exceptional and rare circumstances where the court should exercise its discretion to impose a stay of the proceedings based on delay.

“This case concerns charges of both applicants under the Prevention of Corruption Act in May 2005 involving state funds. There is, therefore, a significant public interest in persons charged being brought to trial,” the magistrate said.

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 therefore significant in my determination of the application before this court in dealing with this matter justly.”

On June 29 last year, Gaspard said it was his position that “taking Piarco One to trial would have been oppressive if not legally nettlesome while the other matters related to the airport project were in the train, bearing in mind that there were commonly accused in both sets of matters.”

Instead, he said, “a joint trial of the allegations in Piarco One and those arising from those other matters was desirable.”

In the first case, commonly referred to as Piarco 1, a group of government officials and businesspeople was charged with offenses related to the alleged theft of TT$19 million.

The group included Galbaransingh, former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung; former national security minister Russell Huggins; the later Nipdec chairman Edward Bayley; the late Maritime General executives John Smith, Steve Ferguson, and Barbara Gomes; Northern Construction Financial Director Amrith Maharaj; and Renee Pierre.

Some of the group and other public officials were also slapped with separate charges over an alleged broader conspiracy to steal US$200 million in another case, commonly referred to as Piarco 2.

The Piarco 3 case pertained to a £$25,000 bribe allegedly received by Panday and his wife and reportedly paid by John and Galbaransingh, while Piarco 4 involves Pierre.

The Piarco 4 still needs to be completed.

In June last year, the London-based Privy Council, the country’s highest court, ruled that a complaint by the accused charged in Piarco One of apparent bias against then chief magistrate Sherman McNicolls was sufficient to strike down their committal to stand trial. Gaspard said he now has to consider the future of that case.