Karl blew whistle on Panday

According to attorney Douglas Mendes yesterday,  it was Karl Hudson-Phillips QC who first  wrote then Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mark Mohammed a letter in May 2000, alerting him about former prime minster Basdeo Panday’s failure to declare certain London bank accounts to the Integrity Commission.

Mendes, one of the attorneys representing the State in a constitutional motion brought by Panday with respect to three charges of false declarations allegedly made by him under the Integrity in Public Life (IPL) Act, gave a chronology of events which led to Panday’s charges. He said that on May 2, 2000, the DPP received a letter from Hudson-Phillips about Panday’s London bank transaction. And on July 18 2002, the Commis-sion wrote to the DPP disclosing a bundle of documents. DPP Geoffrey Henderson, in his affidavit in this motion, stated that Hudson-Phillips brought to the attention of his predecessor Mark Mohammed certain transactions which Hudson-Phillips  thought would be of interest to the Integrity Commission and which Hudson-Phillips forwarded to Mohammed for Mohammed’s information and for him to take such action as he may be advised under the IPL Act. Submissions in the motion ended yesterday in the Port-of-Spain Second Civil Court and trial judge Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee reserved judgement for a date to be announced.

Panday’s lawyer, Allan Alexander SC, in rebuttal submission, said that the period of limitation argument made by the State was semantic, illogical, untenable and contrary to every common construction known to the law. Mendes disputed Alexander’s claim that Section 28 of the 2000 amended Integrity in Public Life (IPL) Act created an immunity for persons no longer in public life, and that the charges brought against Panday for allegedly making false declarations to the Integrity Commission for 1997, 1998 and 1999 were statute barred and out of the limitation period for laying such charges. The IPL Act, first passed in Parliament in 1987, was repealed and replaced with the 2000 Act.

Mendes contended that according to the 1987 Act, the limitation period to lay such charges was five years from the time the person ceases being in public life while the 2000 Act says six months. He further argued that under the 2000 Act, time has not yet begun to run because Panday has not ceased being in public life. But Alexander contended that the Section Mendes was referring too was an immunity Section and not a limitation since the Section stated that after such a period, charges cannot be brought against a person. He also argued that the Act speaks of summary conviction and since the limitation for bringing an action under the Summary Court Offences Act was six months, the charges against Panday were statute barred. While charges against Panday were being heard before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Magistrates’  Court, Panday complained that his constitutional fundamental rights were being infringed and will continue to be infringed if hearing of the charges continued. Mc Nicolls then referred Panday’s constitutional complaints to be dealt with by a High Court judge. Panday was also represented by attorneys Desmond Allum SC, Fayad Hosein and Devish Maharaj, while Jamaican attorney Dr Lloyd Barnett led the State’s team which included Mendes, Sean Julian and Rehanna Hosein.