Former auditor-general Anand Goolsarran believes there is no need for witnesses to pursue a case against former finance minister Dr Ashni Singh for alleged financial wrongdoings while in office, but Attorney-General Basil Williams insists that no case can hold up in court without witnesses.
Speaking to Stabroek News recently, Goolsarran said that the forensic audit report on the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) has an abundance of evidence of wrongdoing as well as legislative violations on the part of the Singh when he was chairman of the entity’s board and a member of Cabinet under the former PPP/C administration.
Government has been heavily criticised for spending millions of dollars to conduct forensic audits and then failing to following through with recommendations for criminal probes and charges.
The NICIL forensic audit had recommended criminal and/or disciplinary action against all those responsible for the interception of state revenues totaling $26.858 billion in violation of the constitution. There have also been other instances where it has been recommended that Singh be criminally charged.
When asked if there is anything stopping a criminal case against Singh from going ahead, Goolsarran said that one would find the answer by looking at the “excess expenditure case.”
“The then acting chief justice ruled that the then minister of finance violated the Article 218 (3) Constitution by causing expenditure totalling $4.554 billion to be incurred without parliamentary approval. The situation is similar to that of Brazil where the president was impeached and eventually removed from office,” he recalled.
Goolsarran added that the records of this constitutional violation are available at the Parliament Office to institute disciplinary action against the former minister. He posited that in the circumstances, “there is hardly any need for witnesses.”
He agreed that persons would be scared to come forward and give evidence because prosecutors are no match for a “battery of eminent lawyers on the side of the defence.” In the circumstances, he said witnesses are discredited, harassed and thrown to the wolves when giving evidence. “Who would want to give evidence in such a scenario?” he questioned.
However, Goolsarran maintains that government should proceed with prosecuting all those who have violated the laws and the constitution and in doing so special prosecutors, such as Sir Fenton Ramsahoye, should be appointed to look after the interest of the state. “If the government does not do so, it is sending the wrong signals that it is condoning corruption. It must not pre-empt what is likely to happen. After all, some $150 million was expended in undertaking the forensic audits, and citizens expect the government to take appropriate, condign and conclusive action,” he said.
“Was it a case where the forensic audits were ordered to merely embarrass the previous administration?” he further asked.
Goolsarran added that if the government proceeds with prosecution, at least it would have discharged its responsibilities to the citizens of the country. “It should be indifferent as to the outcome… To mitigate the possibility of losing, it should hire the best lawyers to prosecute. Our criminal justice system is too skewed too much in favour of the defence because of weak prosecution. How do you explain so many cases being dismissed? In the circumstances, genuine witnesses become victims and the accused the victor! How sad,” he stressed.
He said it is all about appointing special prosecutors with skills and training to match those of the “battery of eminent lawyers” that defendants would hire.
According to Goolsarran, the “excess expenditure” case does not need any witnesses and the former acting chief justice was able to rule without any witnesses being called. The same applies to certain aspects of the NICIL report.
“I have done an analysis of the report and I have identified several areas of constitutional and legislative violations,” he pointed out.
“He [Singh] undermined the role of the [National] Assembly in relation to budgetary matters and had the misplaced belief that, as minister of finance, he could take decisions without the approval of the Assembly,” he pointed out.
An audit of the Guyana National Cooperative Bank and other agencies, released earlier this year, recommended legal action be taken against Singh and the principals of three entities for the recovery of investments of $866 million. The investments in question comprised loans of $581 million to the now abandoned Casique Hotel project at Providence, $270 million to the Guyana Sugar Corporation and $15 million to the Guyana Rice Producers’ Association.
Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan, when asked about the criminal investigations recommended in audit reports, had said several weeks ago that investigations are at a standstill because scared witnesses are not giving statements.
“You can give a lot of the evidence to an auditor but when it comes to criminal prosecutions you have to do the written statements and some of these persons who have to give [them] and testify when they know what the investigation is all about have been telling some of the policemen… that they are scared to death and we do not have a witness protection plan,” he had said.
As a result, for the time being, those matters have been placed on the backburner and Ramjattan had said that it is hoped that the passage of witness protection legislation may see a change in this trend. A consultation session on draft legislation is scheduled for 9 am tomorrow at the Pegasus Hotel, where members of the public have been invited to give their views.
At a press conference last Friday, Attorney-General Williams insisted that no case can be made against Singh without witnesses.
Told that Goolsarran’s position was that there were constitutional violations committed by the former minister and thus there is no need to depend on witnesses, Williams, while pointing out that he was not privy to what Goolsarran had said, stressed that “if you have to make out a criminal charge against a citizen of Guyana, you have to lead evidence.”
He said he knows of no country in the Commonwealth, in which there is a presumption of innocence before being found guilty, where you could actually convict someone without leading evidence in a court of law.
Asked if the evidence gathered during a forensic audit cannot be used to pursue a person criminally in the absence of witnesses, he questioned how that could be done. “How do you create a case against anyone without leading evidence?” he asked.
