Tempers flare as Bayley called in for questioning

TEMPERS flared again yesterday at the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport development project as the Commis-sioners indicated their intention to question former NIPDEC Chairman, Edward Bayley.

The Commission is expected to send a second summons to Bayley for him to appear to be questioning by the Commission’s attorneys, led by Theodore Guerra, SC. The announcement by Chairman Clinton Bernard, took Bayley’s attorneys, Sonny Maharaj, SC leading Stuart Young, by surprise, causing Maharaj to complain that the Commission “must follow established principles.” Bayley was present at the sitting. Maharaj’s complaint was based on the fact that Bernard had indicated last Friday that attorneys for the Commission would have responded to his (Maharaj) “in camera” submissions. Maharaj said Bernard’s announcement at the start of the sitting demonstrated that the Commission, “for no reason, had abandoned that position”. Bernard agreed that no response would be given by the Commission’s attorneys, but Maharaj hotly demanded that a “reasonable response” be given to him on the Commission’s course of action.

Bernard did not oblige but instead asked if Maharaj was ready to question Noel Garcia, the former NIPDEC General Manager, who was available for questioning. Maharaj insisted that his submissions had asked the Commission to note that there was no evidence to implicate Bayley. Bernard’s attempts to interrupt Maharaj was met with a loud “you must listen to me” from Maharaj. Bernard explained that there was evidence against Bayley. But a persistent Maharaj demanded, “Tell us what it is,” as he continued to insist that the evidence given by Garcia had been discredited by NIPDEC’s attorney, Christopher Hamel-Smith. Therefore the Commission could not rely on it, he said. Bernard reminded Maharaj that in his submissions, he had described Garcia’s evidence as “mauvais langue,” which he couldn’t do from the bar table. He said that there was other evidence on which Maharaj could question Garcia. As the exchange between the two continued with raised voices, junior attorney for the Commission, Margaret Rose attempted to explain that the matter be dealt with “in camera”, but her advice was not heeded by Bernard. Instead he and Maharaj continued their verbal exchange with Bernard insisting, “Notwithstanding what you say, we want to hear from Mr Edward Bayley.”