The charges of misconduct in public office, which were previously instituted against Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh and Head of the Gas-to-Shore Taskforce Winston Brassington over their sale of state lands, were withdrawn yesterday.
According to attorney Sase Gunraj, one of the lawyers for the accused, the Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU), which had filed the charges “indicated to the Chief Magistrate [Ann McLennan] that they don’t have a desire to proceed with the matter.”
The charges were instituted against Singh and Brassington under the former APNU+AFC administration for actions that they had taken while serving under the previous PPP/C government.
It was alleged that Singh and Brassington sold a tract of land, being 4.7 acres at Plantation Liliendaal, East Coast Demerara, which was the property of Guyana, for the sum of $150 million to Scady Business Corporation, while knowing that the property was valued at $340 million by Rodrigues Architects Limited.
It was also alleged that by way of agreement of sale and purchase, they acted recklessly when they sold a tract of land, which was a portion of Plantation Liliendaal, Pattensen and Turkeyen, East Coast Demerara, being 103.88 acres, to National Hardware Guyana Limited for $598,659,398 (VAT exclusive), without having a valuation of the property from a competent valuation officer.
It was also alleged that they acted recklessly when they sold a 10-acre tract of land at Plantation Turkeyen, which was the property of Guyana, for the sum of $185,037,000 to Multicinemas Guyana Inc, without procuring a valuation of the said property from a competent valuation officer.
Both men were granted $2 million bail on each of the three joint charges.
Just over three weeks ago, Chief Justice Roxane George ruled that the charges against the two must go to trial in the Magistrates’ Courts. Singh and Brassington through their attorney—now Attorney General Anil Nandlall—had filed an action in the High Court challenging the validity of the charges laid by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The Chambers of the AG under the former APNU+AFC Coalition Administ-ration had argued that the sales executed by the two had not been done with prudence or with an appreciation for market value.
Singh was Finance Minister, at the time of the sale, while Brassington was the former head of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL). Nandlall had argued that his two clients were carrying out the mandate of government at the time, which had taken a political decision to have the lands sold. He then said that they were acting on behalf of NICIL and that it was this entity which authorised the sale and not Singh or Brassington. and to this end questioned why the DPP would have singled out just two persons and not charged the entire board of NICIL also.
He had argued further that while one has to be a prudent vendor, assuming but not accepting that his clients were imprudent, it could not amount to their actions being criminal or that criminal liability should be attached to them. Additionally, he had said at best, one may want to argue that it was a bad political decision to have sold the lands in the manner they were sold but that it could not be the standard of the criminal law that such actions should give rise to criminal liability.
Nandlall had argued, also, that the criminal law could not attract sanction for the use of an opinion on a valuation from one person against another. “So how are they charged with misconduct in public office when it was NICIL who sold?” Nandlall asked.
He had said that the transaction was standard procedure at the time, given the market value at which the government decided to sell, irrespective of an opinion of one valuation officer. “It is just that, an opinion,” he argued.
In their application challenging the validity of the charges, the men were seeking to have the DPP’s decision to institute the charges against them reviewed and ultimately quashed.
