(Trinidad Guardian) After spending almost two decades before the courts, former prime minister Basdeo Panday, his wife Oma, former Cabinet minister Carlos John and businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh have been freed of corruption charges related to the construction of the Piarco International Airport.
Appearing before Magistrate Adia Mohammed in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court yesterday morning, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, announced his decision to use his constitutional discretion to discontinue the charges against the group.
Gaspard explained that his decision was based on the low probability of his office securing convictions in the case.
He explained that several key witnesses had died since the group was charged in 2006 and one main witness is now elderly and lives abroad. He also noted that the accused had a “fair argument” that they faced “presumed, presumptive and specific” prejudice in the case.
The case against the group was one of four related to the airport project initiated following an investigation by Canadian forensic expert Robert Lindquist.
In the first case, commonly referred to as Piarco 1, a group of government officials and businesspeople was charged with offences related to the alleged theft of $19 million.
The group included Galbaransingh, former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung; former national security minister Russell Huggins; former Nipdec chairman Edward Bayley (now deceased); Maritime General executives John Smith (now deceased), Steve Ferguson, and Barbara Gomes; Northern Construction Financial director Amrith Maharaj; and Kuei Tung’s then-companion Renee Pierre.
Some of the group and other public officials were also slapped with separate charges over an alleged broader conspiracy in another case, commonly referred to as Piarco 2.
The Piarco 3 case pertained to a £25,000 bribe allegedly received by Panday and his wife, and allegedly paid by John and Galbaransingh, as an alleged inducement in relation to the airport project. The Piarco 4 case only involves Pierre.
In 2019, a High Court Judge upheld a legal challenge over the Piarco 2 case after former senior magistrate Ejenny Espinet retired with the preliminary inquiry almost complete. The ruling meant the preliminary inquiry into the Piarco 2 case had to be restarted before a new magistrate, along with the Piarco 3 inquiry, which was also before Espinet and left incomplete upon her retirement.
The Piarco 4 is also yet to be completed.
In June last year, the United Kingdom-based Privy Council upheld an appeal from some of the accused in the Piarco 1 case, over the decision of former chief magistrate Sherman McNicolls to commit them to stand trial for the charges.
The Privy Council ruled that McNicolls should have upheld their application for him to recuse himself from the case, as he was “hopelessly compromised” based on a then-pending land deal with Clico and the involvement of former attorney general John Jeremie, SC, in helping him resolve it.
The Privy Council said: “Given that everything was happening in the full flare of publicity his mind must have been in turmoil. It is not difficult to imagine his gratitude. He has the Attorney General to thank for resolving his serious financial problems and for shutting down an investigation into his reprehensible conduct.”
Following the outcome of the case, DPP Gaspard issued a press release in which he noted the inquiry had to be either restarted or the accused persons had to agree that indictments against them could be filed in the High Court without going through the PI process.
Gaspard noted that he would only make a decision on whether it should be restarted after considering public interest factors, including the age of the case, costs incurred by the State thus far, and the need to demonstrate the State’s commitment to prosecuting alleged acts of fraud on the citizenry. He also suggested a joint trial of all the allegations arising out of the four Piarco cases would be desirable.
“It has been my public position that taking Piarco 1 to trial would have been oppressive if not legally nettlesome while the other matters related to the airport project were in train, bearing in mind that there were common accused in both sets of matters,” Gaspard had said.
When Piarco 3 came up before Magistrate Mohammed last year, lawyers representing the group sought to stop its restart, as they claimed it would be oppressive due to “inexcusable and inordinate” delays by the State in prosecuting it.
The Pandays were represented by Justin Phelps and Chase Pegus, while Sophia Chote, SC, and Samantha Ramsaran represented John. Galbaransingh was represented by Rajiv Persad.
Magistrate Mohammed eventually dismissed the application for a stay of the proceedings in September last year.
Magistrate Mohammed said: “I am therefore satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the delay complained of has not resulted in prejudice to the applicants such that it may be contended that they cannot receive a fair trial.”
She added, “I am also satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the continued prosecution of the applicants is not unconscionable, oppressive, and a misuse of the process of the court.”
In November last year, British King’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald wrote to Gaspard on behalf of most of the accused in the other three Piarco cases and called for a similar stay. Fitzgerald put forward six main grounds why he and his colleagues felt that Gaspard should exercise his discretion under Section 90(3)(c) of the Constitution to take the bold move.
“Where the interests of justice and the public interest can only be met by discontinuing the Piarco proceedings, the DPP not only has the power to take that step but an obligation to do so in his role as an impartial ‘minister of justice’,” Fitzgerald said.
Fitzgerald’s main ground of contention was that the move was necessary to protect the moral integrity of the criminal justice system, based on serious allegations of political interference in the investigation that led to the charges against his clients.
Fitzgerald further claimed his clients’ right to a fair trial without undue delay was breached, as the four cases have been pending for almost two decades. He also referred to Jeremie’s involvement in the cases, including his then role as head of the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB), which investigated and laid the charges in the cases.
Gaspard is yet to announce his decisions on the other cases but is expected to do so when they come up for hearing later this year.
Last April, there was public concern after Florida Circuit Court Judge Reemberto Diaz disqualified Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, and the country’s US lawyers, Sequor Law, from representing T&T in a multi-million civil asset forfeiture case against some of the accused persons and companies in the Piarco cases.
The decision was based on Armour allegedly downplaying his role in representing Kuei Tung in the local proceedings several years ago.
Armour has denied any wrongdoing, as he claimed he informed the court of his role based on his memory while on an overseas trip. He also contended he was denied an opportunity to correct the record after he had an opportunity to check the information.
Although former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi was appointed as the substitute client representative for this country, the decision was appealed.
Delivering a decision early last month, three judges of Florida’s Third Appellate Court upheld their colleague’s decision.
Al-Rawi is currently in the US representing T&T in that civil matter.
