By Candace Phillips
Broadcaster Chandra Narine Sharma was yesterday arraigned on another charge of obstructing the course of justice, stemming from the broadcast of a television interview conducted with the witnesses at the centre of the carnal knowledge matter against him.
Sharma was placed on $150,000 bail by acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson.
As he stood in the dock, he appeared frail and was told that he was not required to plead to the indictable charge.
It is alleged that between June 17 and 24, Sharma willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice by communicating with the girls who are witnesses in charges pending against him, so as to cause them to change their testimony on the said criminal charge.
Attorney Sanjeev Datadin entered an appearance on behalf of the state while attorneys Nigel Hughes and Vic Puran represented Sharma.
In his opening statement, Hughes said that when the previous charges were laid against his client, he refrained from commenting on what was the motivation for the charges. Now, Hughes said, it had become evident that Sharma was caught up in political wrangling.
Hughes then raised the issue of the recent posting of the virtual complainant’s entire statement on the internet. He said that the documents were the property of the police and the state had an obligation to protect the young lady in the matter. He said that it bothers his mind as to how the statements became public.
Further, the attorney said that what was more important was not how the files were leaked, rather why they were made public. Of interest, he said, was the lack of visible attempts to prosecute the person(s) who might have stolen and/or posted the document. He added that Sharma did not have access to the statements from the police.
As it relates to the custody of the witnesses, Hughes said that the sisters were being kept in protective custody by the state. Of their own volition, he said, they left or escaped and were interviewed by a media house on the circumstances under which they were being kept.
He said that the interview was broadcast by several other media houses and there was no visible sign of coercion. He added that the girls have been rearrested by police and taken into protective custody and now charges have been laid against Sharma.
Interview
Based on the interview given by the girls, Hughes noted that it contradicted what was said in their previous statements to the police. He said that the charge could only be described as perverse and motivated by intentions other than law.
He queried why Sharma was charged again, since the girls said that they were coerced by the state and did not give any statement as to Sharma’s involvement in their interview.
Meanwhile Special Prosecutor Datadin said that at no time were the girls arrested by the police, that they were never in protective custody and were not restrained or prevented from doing what they pleased. He reiterated this point twice. He added that they were never coerced to give their statements. They were only required to give information to the police in the matter, he said.
In response to the website post, he said that the police are now carrying out investigations to determine the source of the statements.
He said that Hughes’s claim about the charge being politically motivated was simply not true.
Hughes posited that on April 16 when the girls were taken to the police station, attorney Tanya Warren was in their company since she was their legal counsel.
Once there they were placed in a room and she was barred from having any contact with them. They were then taken away by human services officers.
Datadin contended that the girls never had legal representation nor did they indicate the desire to have any. He added that the girls were taken to Hughes’s office by Sharma so that they might give statements.
Meanwhile Puran said that the charge was very serious and he too believed that the case was taking on an existence outside of the law. He indicated to the court that attempts were being made to deprive Sharma of legal representation. He said that allegations have been made against Hughes and himself. It is alleged that one of the lawyers was present when the interview was being conducted and reportedly coached the girls on what to say.
Datadin said he opposed the granting of bail. He said that the charge was similar in nature to the one Sharma is currently on. He added that the charges were the same in essence but the latest one was separate and more recent in time. “All relate to the same case and same witnesses,” the prosecutor said.
He submitted that the accused will interfere with witnesses or interact with them with the intention to pervert the course of justice. He said in the previous case, there was a likelihood of such, which has now become a reality. He added that there was no good reason why he should be granted bail.
In response, Hughes said that the circumstances were extraordinary, non-legal and clearly instituted to target his client.
Sharma was then granted bail and the matter adjourned to September 3 in Court Three.
On April 26, Sharma was placed on $100,000 bail when the first witness tampering charge was read to him. Two of his employees, Doodnauth Sharma and Raywattie Ramsaywack were also charged with a similar offence.
All three are charged separately with willfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice by removing two of the girls at the centre of the allegations against Sharma from their known address and taking them to a house at 123 Golden Grove, East Bank Demerara in order to prevent them from being questioned by the police in relation to the allegations.
Meanwhile the preliminary inquiry into the witness tampering charge against Sharma’s son-in-law Ravi Mangar and Mark Reid continued before Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond yesterday afternoon in Court Ten.
The second witness, a detective corporal, gave his evidence in chief and was cross-examined by defence attorneys Mark Waldron and Puran.
The matter was put down for July 23 when the next witness is expected to testify.
Mangar and security guard Reid were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by offering $2M and a house lot to the girls at the centre of the sexual molestation case against Sharma. They were each placed on $100,000 bail when they made their first court appearance.
