State closes its case, and Karl charges politics in Dhanraj’s case

Karl Hudson-Phillips QC yesterday suggested that former Government Minister Dhanraj Singh was framed for the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh for political reasons. Hudson-Phillips, who leads the defence team, described the alleged frame-up as “scandalous,” claiming that police had information that their key witness Elliot Hypolite was lying, yet they continued with the prosecution of Dhanraj. He questioned whether the prosecution would go to any lengths to secure a conviction. Following an objection by the State’s lead prosecutor Sir Timothy Cassel QC,  Hudson-Phillips echoed: “I am making certain motives about the police prosecution and I will not be deterred.” 

Dhanraj is before Justice Paula Mae Weekes in the Port-of-Spain Second Criminal Court charged with the December 30, 1999, murder of Sumairsingh, then Chairman of the Mayaro/Rio Claro Regional Corporation. Sumairsingh was found shot to death at his Eccles Road beach house in Mayaro.   Hudson-Phillips’  allegations and suggestions  were put to Sgt Fitzgerald  George, the police complainant in the case, who denied them, except, to admit that there were some material inconsistencies between the evidence of Hypolite and Fazard Ali.  It was on Ali’s statement and statutory declaration that the police had initially charged Hypolite with Sumairsingh’s murder. But while Hypolite’s preliminary inquiry was in progress at the Mayaro Magistrates’ Court with his  attorney Ian Brooks,  sometime during the night, senior police officers, attorney Ronald Boynes and a Justice of the Peace, got a statement from Hypolite implicating Dhanraj as the man who had hired Hypolite to kill Sumairsingh. Hypolite was granted immunity from further prosecution of the Sumairsingh murder and largely as a result of his statement, among other things, Dhanraj was charged with the murder.  Hudson-Phillips’ questioned yesterday how at one moment the police believed Ali to such an extent that on his evidence they charged Hypolite with Sumairsingh’s murder and only later, based on Hypolite’s statement, they dropped the case against him and charged Dhanraj.

During Hudson-Phillips’ cross-examination of Sgt George, he alluded to a conspiracy by asking questions about the political atmosphere after the 2001 General Elections which resulted in a 19/17 loss for PNM. Hudson-Phillips observed that of 800- plus attorneys practising, the only attorney  found to accompany the police when taking the statement from Hypolite was Ronald Boynes, brother of PNM Member of Parlia-ment, Roger Boynes. And all this time, he noted,  Brooks was still Hypolite’s attorney. Hudson-Phillips also questioned why Sgt George did not accompany the others when they took the statement from Hypolite,since he was the complainant. After Dhanraj was charged, Stg George admitted he heard allegations made by Dhanraj that the police were constantly trying to induce and encourage him to squeal on the big boy (in his part) and say all who were involved in the alleged corruption and voter padding.

But George denied that the police would do something like that. Hudson-Phillips concluded his cross-examination by noting Dhanraj’s portfolio, describing him as a jovial man, and one for whom a calypso was even penned — “Wine Dhanraj Wine.” Cassel, who leads Assistant DPP Devan Rampersad and prosecutors Angelica Teelucksingh and Cheron Raphael, closed the State’s case yesterday.  When hearing resumes today, Hudson-Phillips, who leads Ravi Rajcoomar, Prakash Ramadhar and Jennifer Hudson-Phillips, will decide whether Dhanraj will use his option to testify.