Freed Vijay bats for CJ

FREED Prof Vijay Naraynsingh yesterday said that Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma was among innocent citizens in the country who were being “unjustly prosecuted.” Prof Naraynsingh made the comment after he walked out of the San Fernando Magis-trates’ Court yesterday when Deputy Chief Magistrate Mark Wellington ruled that the State had not made out a case against him for the murder of his former wife Chandra in 1994. Speaking to the media outside the courthouse, Naraynsingh said: “I am concerned about my people. I am more concerned that when the Chief Justice raises his finger in defence of justice, the man who is the custodian of justice, who sees brutality in the name of justice, raises his finger in totality — his hand is chopped off. That’s a concern.

And anywhere there is injustice, it is a threat to justice everywhere. And our Chief Justice knows that.” The current controversy with CJ Sharma stemmed from criticism by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson in the charge against Naraynsingh for the murder of the professor’s wife, Dr Chandra Naraynsingh, ten years ago. According to Henderson, he had five meetings with Sharma and in a report to Prime Minister Manning, he stated that during his meetings with Sharma, the Naraynsingh case was discussed and the CJ argued that the prosecution of Naraynsingh could be dropped because, among other things, there was a letter sent to the DPP that suggested a plan to falsely implicate Naraynsingh in the murder. Attorney General John Jeremie, who also filed a complaint against Sharma, reported that Sharma showed him a scar and said Naraynsingh had saved his life during surgery, when he detected an hitherto undetectable tumor in his kidney, and asked if there was anything that could be done to abort the Naraynsingh prosecution.

Manning is now investigating the issue that could see a tribunal being appointed to investigate if Sharma should be removed. Yesterday, Naraynsingh admitted his surprise about the evidence brought against him by the State. “I am very worried about my country that this could happen. That this State can have unequivocal documented evidence that I was not there on the one single day that I was alleged to have met one single person. And the State can proceed with prosecution.” He added that his concern was not the prosecution brought against him, nor his co-accused wife Seeromanie and businessman Elton Ramasir, but for “the people of his country.” Naraynsingh said he intended to pray and thank God for Deputy Chief Magistrate Mark Wellington. He said: “I am going to pray. I am going to pray for my country.

I am going to thank God for the magistrate who had the strength this morning to recognise what a travesty of justice this has been.” Commenting on the murder charge against him, Naraysingh added: “To describe it as a travesty of justice is a euphemism. This is reckless justice. This is barbaric. It’s raw, untamed barbarism. But I am glad that I have the strength to deal with this.” The professor of surgery also made a call for “the people of this country to rally behind me because it is not the brutality of the evil, but it is the silence of the good ones that has caused this kind of thing to happen. “So the good ones in this country can no longer afford to remain silent, and we will not remain silent.”

The attorneys who represented Naraynsingh issued a statement yesterday. The faxed statement bore the names of Hudson-Phillips, QC and Ravi Rajcoomar. It stated: “Regrettably, a very severe insult has been done to the impeccable reputation of Prof Vijay Naraynsingh. He has been put through a considerable disruption of his family and professional life. Whether this was necessary at all will have to be determined authoritively.” Defence attorney Prakash Ramadhar also commented: “It is really abhorrent on what has transpired here by the DPP’s office to allow such an abomination to take place here in a sacred place such as the court. It should never ever happen again.” The courts, Ramadhar said, “are the one and only bastien of the freedom of the people.”

Case against Vijay’s wife, businessman

PROFESSOR Vijay Naraynsingh yesterday walked out of the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court a free man and was cheered and clapped by relatives and well-wishers. Deputy Chief Magis-trate Mark Wellington discharged him at the end of a Preliminary Inquiry into the murder of Naraynsingh’s second wife Dr Chandra Narayn-singh in 1994. Wellington ruled that he did not find sufficient evidence was led by the State to send the vascular surgeon to trial. However, Naraynsingh’s third wife Seeromanie and businessman Elton Ramasir, who were jointly charged with the professor, will now have to present witnesses as the magistrate ruled that the State had made out a prima facie case against them. The magistrate did not commit Seeromanie and Ramasir to stand trial in the High Court because he must first call on them to present witnesses.

He did so yesterday and adjourned continued hearing of the inquiry in respect of Seeromanie and Ramasir, to next week Tuesday. Naraynsingh spoke to the media about “injustices being done to innocent people.” Minutes after Welling-ton delivered his ruling, crowds of  people outside the courthouse began to clap in support of Naraynsingh. The magistrate delivered his ruling around 11.20 am to a silent courtroom which was packed to capacity with Narayn-singh’s relatives, attorneys, policemen, members of the medical fraternity and persons from the Hindu Prachar Kendra organisation. Scores of people pack-ed the courtroom and its corridors from 9 am, the magistrate having fixed 10 am to deliver his decision. The case was called, then Wellington stood the matter down and proceeded to deal with other matters on the list.

Wellington delivered his findings on the case against Seeromanie and Ramasir first. “All right, evidence has been led in this matter for about two and a half months,” were Welling-ton’s first words. He then dealt with his deliberations on the inquiry in which he heard testimony of 29 witnesses, and ended with no-case submissions by a battery of attorneys defending Naraynsingh, Seeroman-ie and Ramasir, including Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, Ravi Raj-coomar, Larry Lalla and Prakash Ramadhar. Responses were made by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard. Wellington said, “Hav-ing considered the matter in totality and submissions advanced by attorneys on both sides, and authorities in support of the relative submissions, the court is of the opinion upon consideration of the code of evidence, that so far as number one accused Seeromanie Ma-haraj, a prima facie case has been made out. And with respect to number two (Ramasir), a prima facie case has been made out.”

The magistrate paused, then gave his ruling in respect of Naraynsingh. Magistrate Wellington said, “With respect to number three (Narayn-singh), the court is of the opinion that evidence led is not sufficient to call him to answer the charge of murder. Number three is accordingly dischar-ged.” A court and process policeman immediately ushered Naraynsingh from the prisoner’s bench to a bench in the public gallery, where the professor’s daughter, Anamika, was seated. Magistrate Welling-ton then called on Seeromani to stand before him then read the caution to her, informing her of her constitutional rights. The magistrate asked Seeromani if she had anything to say or give evidence, advising that whatever she said could be held against her. Seeromanie stood silently, her head bent slightly as her defence attorney, Prakash Ramadhar, rose and told magistrate Wellington that the accused had nothing to say.

Asked by Wellington if the accused Seeromani intended to call witnesses, Ramadhar ann-ounced that he intended to call the Chief Fire Officer of Trinidad and Tobago for him to present relevant records and photographs to the court. When the magistrate cautioned Ramasir and asked if he intended to call witnesses, his attorney Larry Lalla said he would reserve his position until the evidence by Seeromanie was heard. As Seeromanie was escorted out of the courtroom in handcuffs, Naraynsingh kissed his wife on her cheek and whispered words to her. The professor walked out of the court hand in hand with his daughter — Anamika — to loud applause from the crowd who occupied every conceivable spot along the steps and corridors of the courthouse. Naraynsingh was kissed and hugged by relatives and friends as he stepped outside the courthouse.

Naraynsingh spoke to the media about “injustices being done to innocent people.” With attorney Ramadhar, Naraynsingh visited Seeromani who, by then, was back in custody having been escorted to the nearby police station. Instead of taking the route on Harris Promenade along the road, Naraynsingh’s attorneys accompanied him through the entrance of the High Court where he was allowed by police officers to speak to Seeromani inside the station. Shortly after he left San Fernando with daughter Anamika, Naraynsingh visited the Kala Kendra Prechar Mandir at Ragoonanan Road, Enterprise Village, Chaguanas, where he offered prayers. Contacted yesterday, Chief Justice Sat Sharma said he had no comment to make on the matter. Sharma had reportedly criticised the State’s evidence against Prof Naraynsingh and the issue is now the subject of an investigation following complaints made to the Prime Minister against the Chief Justice by Attorney General John Jeremie and Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson.