Lawyer: 2000 Act does not undermine ’87 Act

Attorney Dr Lloyd Barnett said yesterday that it was manifestly  absurd that an Act which was intended to strengthen the law was granting immunity to persons who committed offences which that law  also condemns. Dr Barnett was at the time addressing Justice Maureen Rajnauth Lee on the Integrity in Public Life Act which was amended in 2000, and under which three charges were brought against former prime minister Basdeo Panday for failing to make certain financial declarations as required by that Act. Panday’s attorney Allan Alexander SC argued that the 1987 Act under which his client had filed his declaration was repealed by the 2000 amended Act and further, the charges against Panday were statute barred. Barnett, who cited several cases in support of his arguments, said that the clear objectivity of the 2000 Act is to strengthen requirements for the prevention of corruption in public life and increase the punishment for those who fail to disclose their assets.

He cautioned  that the repeal of the Act does not result in the wiping out of the criminal liability which had occurred under the ’87 Act. He submitted that close examination of the 2000 Act it will reveal that it was not intended that the liabilities under the ’87 Act should not continue to be enforceable” ...liabilities under the ’87 Act are preserved.” Panday, 70, of Bryan’s Gate, Palmiste, San Fernando, is alleged to have made false declarations to the Integrity Commission in that he failed to declare a London bank account which was in his name and his wife’s, for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. On September 18, 2002, he was charged with breach of the Integrity Act. When his matter came up before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, Panday’s attorneys Desmond Allum SC, Fayad Hosein and Devish Maharaj, raised constitutional issues which were referred to the High Court for determination by Mc Nicolls.

The matter is being heard before Justice Rajnauth-Lee in the Port-of-Spain Second Civil Court. The State is being represented by Jamaican constitutional lawyer Barnett, who leads Douglas Mendes, Sean Julian and Rehanna Hosein. Barnett suggested  that if Panday succeeded in his contention that his complaints and summons are statute barred by using our normal common-law and statutory methods of challenge, he will have no need to refer to any constitutional provision. However, Barnett warned that in this case there are no special circumstances to justify Panday resorting to constitutional action. In seeking constitutional redress, Barnett said that there are two strains of authority — one dealing with the “Maharaj” principle where there is an error of substantive law or a defect in the legal process which can be corrected at the instance of the person affected by resorting to the ordinary legal process. The other, he contended was the “Jaroo” principle, where parallel remedies exist either at common-law or statutory level. But even if there is contravention of a fundamental rights provision, an application for constitutional redress under section 14 of the Constitution is only justifiable in exceptional circumstances. When hearing resumes today, Barnett will continue his submission.