People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) presidential candidate and former housing minister Irfaan Ali has been granted another adjournment of the start of the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) into the 19 fraud charges brought against him over the sale of state lands.
The adjournment was granted last Friday by Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan based on an application by Ali’s attorney, Anil Nandlall, who noted that an application for a stay of the proceedings is currently before the Court of Appeal.
Nandlall told the court a hearing at the Court of Appeal is fixed for November 26th and as a result asked for an adjournment.
After the attorney made his request, the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) Prosecutor Patrice Henry told the court that the prosecution is prepared to commence the PI.
The Chief Magistrate, after listening to both sides, adjourned the matter until November 29th, when a report is expected.
The charges against Ali detail offences alleged to have occurred between the period of September 2010 and March, 2015, and involve house lot allocations to six former 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.
After the charges were instituted against him last year by SOCU, Ali moved to the High Court against the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Chief Magistrate, and Detective Corporal Muninlall Persaud to seek a declaration that there was no statutory or common law duty to obtain a valuation prior to the sale of property.
Ali wanted the court to also issue an order quashing the DPP’s decision to institute the charges in the first place, which he contended was irrational, unlawful, void and of no effect.
The former minister is asking for general, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages not less than $100,000; costs, and any further order or directions which the court deems just and warranted in the circumstances.
His contention is 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.
However, High Court Judge Franklyn Holder ruled that Ali does not have a constitutional right to not be charged, contrary to what he contended in a challenge. As a result, Ali has appealed the judgment. He has argued, among things, that not only do the charges not amount to an offence known to law but that even if proven they would not yield a conviction.
