Attorney: Commission had no right to examine Panday’s assets

The Integrity Commission appointed under Amendment Act 88 of 2000 had no authority to interfere with those declarations of assets made by former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday to the Commission appointed under the 1987 Act, declared Panday’s attorney Allan Alexander SC, yesterday.

Alexander told Justice Maureen Rajnauth Lee that the declaration was made to the Commission which was given life under the 1987 Integrity in Public Life Act, but that Act was repealed and replaced by an amendment 88 of  2000. He argued that if under the ’87 Act the Commission did not initiate or pursue any action against Panday’s declaration, it could not do so under the 2000 Act. He said: “The 2000 Commission had no authority to interfere with those declarations because the ’87 Commission has not commenced any inquiry, whether by its own accord, the appointing of a tribunal, referral to the DPP or otherwise, so as to enable the 2000 Commission to complete what the ’87 Commission had not done.”

He emphasised that the power given to the Commission under Section 33 of the 2000 Act to consider and inquire into any alleged breaches of the Act, refers to breaches which occur during the currency of the 2000 Commission or breaches which occur during the currency of the ’87 Commission. Even assuming, he added, that the 2000 Commission could have investigated — as they had done — they were not entitled to lay any of the complaints which are before the magistrates’ court. Panday has filed a constitutional motion complaining that his fundamental rights are being infringed or are likely to be infringed if hearing of this matter continues before the magistrates’ court. Among his constitutional complaints is that he will be deprived of due process of the law, in that the section under the ’87 Act which he has been charged is now statute bar because it was repealed and replaced by the 2000 Act.

Arguing his points in the Port-of-Spain Second Civil Court, Alexander submitted that if the Attorney General’s contention is right,  that the matter is not statute bar, then it will follow that there is no limitation period prescribed for the laying of complaints of summary offences under the Act. But to come to that conclusion, he said, will require a total disregard for the clear provisions of section 21 of the 2000 Act which makes a person in public life liable to conviction on a Summary Offence which cannot be laid beyond six months.  And in the case of Panday the complaints against him were laid long after the six month limitation. Alexander warned that due process applies to both procedural and substantive law. He made it clear that  when a declaration is filed with the Commission it remains with the Commission, secret and confidential, and should not be made public except if a piece of the document is used in court. The document is not given to police to investigate or its contents made public. But the Commission examines it and may require further particulars about it. It could then  call on the President to appoint a tribunal or hand over the documents to the DPP.  

Dr Lloyd Barnett, who leads the State’s  team which includes Douglas Mendes, argued that it was not necessary for Panday to file a constitutional motion to seek the redress he is complaining about.  Hearing will continue tomorrow.