Former Minister of Housing and presidential hopeful of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Mohamed Irfaan Ali has lost a challenge to the validity of 19 fraud charges levelled against him over the sale of land in the ‘Pradoville 2’ Housing Scheme, resulting in him now having to go to trial.
The decision paving the way for Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan to proceed with hearing the charges against Ali was handed down yesterday afternoon by High Court Judge Franklyn Holder, who, among other things, declared that Ali does not have a constitutional right not to be charged.
After being slapped with the charges last year, Ali was granted a stay of the proceedings in the lower court, pending the full hearing and determination of his action, which he filed in the High Court to challenge the validity of the charges.
A minister under the former PPP/C administration, Ali had argued in his application that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU)/state was being capricious when it laid the charges against him.
Justice Holder, however, found that there was no evidence to establish mala fides on the part of the prosecution. Against this background, the judge said that the issues raised by Ali regarding the charges can be raised before a magistrate hearing the evidence in the case.
In fact, the judge said that there was no cogent evidence to establish impropriety or dishonesty on the part of the respondent, while adding that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) ought not to have been joined in the proceedings.
In dismissing Ali’s application, Justice Holder noted that Judicial Review which Ali had been seeking is a highly exceptional remedy.
The matter before the chief magistrate is set to come up on August 26th, when it would have been expected that reports be made regarding the High Court proceedings. With Justice Holder’s decision having been rendered, however, a date is likely to be set for the trial.
In the latter part of last year, Ali was arraigned on 19 conspiracy to defraud charges stemming from the sale of land in the Pradoville 2, East Coast of Demerara Housing Scheme, allegedly at a rate far below the value.
The charges, which detail offences alleged to have occurred between the period of September 2010 and March, 2015, involve housing allocations to six Cabinet members—former president Bharrat Jagdeo, Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon and Ministers Priya Manickchand, Dr Jennifer Westford, Robert Persaud and Clement Rohee—along with other persons with connections to the then PPP/C government.
In his suit against the Commissioner of Police, DPP, the Chief Magistrate, and Detective Corporal Muninlall Persaud, Ali was seeking a declaration that there is no statutory or common law duty to obtain a valuation prior to the sale of property.
He was also seeking, among other things, a declaration that the particulars of the charges do not constitute an offence known to law and contravene Section 144(4) of the Constitution.
The section provides, “No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence that is more severe in degree or nature than the most severe penalty that might have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed.”
Ali wanted the court to also issue an order quashing the DPP’s decision to have instituted the charges in the first place, which he contended was irrational, unlawful, void and of no effect.
The former minister was asking for general, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages of not less than $100,000; costs, and any further order or directions which the court deems just and warranted in the circumstances.
Ali had argued that not only did the 19 charges levelled against him not amount to an offence known to law, but that even if proven, “are impossible to yield a conviction.”
His contention was that the conduct alleged in the charges, even if true, cannot in law meet the high standard of misconduct required to support the charges laid against him.
Ali was represented by attorney Anil Nandlall, while SOCU was represented by attorney Leslyn Noble. Representing the DPP was attorney Kim Kyte-Thomas, while the Commissioner of Police and the magistrate were represented by the Attorney General.
