People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) presidential candidate and former housing minister Irfaan Ali’s application for a stay of the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) into the 19 fraud charges brought against him over the sale of state lands in the ‘Pradoville 2’ Housing Scheme is expected to be heard by the Court of Appeal later this month.
This revelation was made by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) Prosecutor, Patrice Henry, in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court One yesterday during a hearing before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan.
According to Henry, the Court of Appeal issued a directive stating that there will be a hearing on January 23rd, to entertain Ali’s argument. He said that after the hearing, a ruling is expected. However, a date for that has not yet been set.
Ali’s attorney subsequently asked for an adjournment and the matter was adjourned until February 13th, 2020 at 09:30 hours.
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. The basis of the charges is that the lands were sold far below market value.
After the charges were instituted against him in 2018 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 Munilall 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 also asked 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 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.
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.
In August, Ali lost his bid in the Court of Appeal to have the matter stayed after Appellate Judge Dawn Gregory explained that having looked at the merits of the substantive appeal, it was clear that it had no arguable prospect of success.
One of his attorneys, Anil Nandlall, subsequently indicated that another application for a stay of the proceedings is currently before the Court of Appeal.
