Allum: Gangar should not have been charged

This was submitted by Desmond Allum SC, lead counsel for Gangar in submissions to senior Magistrate Ejenny Espinet in the Port-of-Spain First Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Allum said the court has no jurisdiction to hear the two charges as the prosecution had failed to initiate them within six months of the date in which the matters arose as required by Section 33 (2) of the Summary Courts Act.

As far as Allum was concerned, the charges are statute barred and should be dismissed. He said that in order for Gangar to succeed, he will have to satisfy the court that first, the limitation period for these offences is six months, and secondly, the prosecution initiated the charges well after the six-month deadline had passed.

Allum, who appeared with Rajiv Persad, said Gangar was charged in June 2004 under the 1987 Act, although the Act was repealed and replaced in 2000.

He pointed out that under the 1987 Act, there was a limitation period of five years in which a prosecution could be brought after the person had ceased to be someone in public life.

Former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, who is facing similar charges, was also charged under the 1987 Act. He filed a constitutional motion challenging this and lost in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The case is now before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Allum said the issue in this matter was whether the limitation period was five years or six months. He said even though the charges were laid under the 1987 Act, any proceedings taken under this Act have to be prosecuted and continued under and in conformity with the substituted law.

Counsel said support for this was found in Section 29(1) of the Interpretation Act. "On the face of Section 29 of the Interpretation Act, we would submit that the clear unambiguous purport of Section 29 is to establish that all proceedings taken under the 1987 Act are to be prosecuted and continued under and in conformity with the 2000 Act."

Dana Seetahal, who appeared for the State, said Section 29 of the Interpretation Act did not apply in this case.

She contended that Gangar was charged under the 1987 Act and, therefore, there was a five-year limitation period.

She found that the former minister had been properly charged.

The magistrate said she would give her decision on October 10.

Gangar is charged with failing to declare to the Integrity Commis-sion bank accounts held in his name and that of his wife Maureen, in Jersey, Channel Islands, New York, and San Fernando, for the years 1999 and 2000.