Depending on a criminal for a conviction

ACCOMPLICE evidence is nothing new in Trinidad and Tobago. While the subject remains a burning issue in recent years, accomplice witnesses have been giving “crucial evidence” for the prosecution. But the prosecution in TT has been successful in the past in using accomplices to seek convictions. Two well-known cases bear testimony to this — the Abdul Malik/Stanley Abbott case, as well as the case against Dole Chadee and his gang of eight. In the majority of cases, the police depend on someone in the “belly” of the organisation to give the evidence needed for a conviction. In the case of Abdul Malik, who else could have given the evidence than someone who was present at Christina Gardens, Arima, on that fateful day in 1970. After the bodies of English socialite Gale Ann Benson and Belmont barber Joseph Skerritt were found in a shallow grave at Christina Gardens, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the police had to find a witness to corroborate the theory of the murders. It certainly couldn’t come from a neighbour or a passerby to Malik’s premises. So up came a man called Parmessar, who was present when both persons were chopped and buried.

Parmessar was granted an immunity from prosecution in return for his evidence against Malik and Abbott, the men charged with the murders. In the first trial, Malik was sentenced to death for Benson’s murder, while Abbott received 20 years for manslaughter. Malik was hanged while Abbott faced the second trial for killing Skerritt. He was found guilty and hanged in 1978. In the Dole Chadee case, Chadee, the gangland boss, was charged with nine members of his gang for the brutal murders of four members of a Williamsville family on January 10, 1994. Who was coming to give evidence against this man and his gang? The police took four months before a breakthrough came. Who was this mystery witness? A member of the gang, of course. Clint Huggins, a SRP by day, and a killer by night. He was granted immunity from prosecution. Huggins gave evidence at the Princes Town Magistrate’s Court at the preliminary inquiry, but foolishly ran away from his safe house at Teteron and was shot, stabbed, burned, and his body left on the Uriah Butler Highway, Mount Hope, on February 20, 1996 — Carnival Tuesday.

The trial eventually started on June 10, 1996. Was Huggins’ deposition enough for a conviction? Yes, to the surprise of many, including the large defense team, one of the accused, Levi Morris, turned state witness. But there were conditions to his testimony. He had to plead guilty to the four murders, be sentenced to death and then be granted a commutation by the then President Noor Hassanali. This was done and Morris testified. Together with Huggins’ deposition, corroborative evidence and Morris’ live evidence, Chadee and the gang were convicted and hanged in June 1999. Immediately following the Chadee trial, accomplice evidence was needed against Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah and Michael “Rat” Maharaj for the murders of Anthony “Tooks” Greenidge and Stephen “Bulls” Sandy. Huggins’ deposition was used along with accomplice witness Dass which resulted in convictions for Boodram and Ramiah, while Maharaj was acquitted. In 2001, former UNC Government Minister Dhanraj Singh was charged with the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh, chairman of the Mayaro/Rio Claro Regional Corporation. Originally, Jamaat Al Muslimeen member Elliott Hypolite had been charged with the murder, but the charge against him was discontinued in return for his testimony against Singh.

But in this case, it was Hypolite’s word against Singh’s. Nothing else. No one saw Singh or anyone else kill Sumairsingh at the Mayaro beach house. So it came as no surprise when the jury acquitted Singh last Thursday at the Port-of-Spain High Court. Apart from the directions of the trial judge, Madame Justice Paula Mae Weekes, the issue was clear for the jury — Who to believe? A Muslimeen strongman who went to kill, or a UNC Minister who claimed he was set up because of his probe into ghost gangs in the URP? It was clear that the Muslimeen man was not to be trusted. Now that the Singh trial is over, what will happen to Hypolite who has been in protective custody since Singh’s arrest? Will the police guard him indefinitely? It is true that Hypolite kept his bargain and testified, but will he be free to roam the streets as he wants? After Chadee was executed, Morris was sent away with his family for a new life and with a new identity. Will that happen to Hypolite, that’s the million-dollar question? Now, there is another high-profile case before the court.

Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr has been charged with conspiracy to murder two expelled members of the Muslimeen. It is alleged that he conspired with David “Buffy” Maillard and others at Citrine Drive, Diamond Vale, Diego Martin, to murder Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubiah. Who is the independent witness? None other than an accomplice, Brent Miller, a Muslimeen member now testifying against his leader. Miller had originally been charged with killing Jilla Bowen at the Movie Towne Cineplex on June 4, but his charges were dropped and he was granted an immunity in return for his testimony against his “boss.” This is a case of the Jamaat versus the Jamaat. The preliminary inquiry has just started, but the stage is set for a startling trial, if it reaches there. The evidence given so far by Miller will cause your hair on your head to stand up. His evidence will be great news for the media who will have a field day covering this trial. But that is still a long way off. We anxiously await the testimony of another accomplice witness, in a world where no one else sees what happens.