Move to block Panday from Privy Council

Panday, a former prime minister, had filed a constitutional motion in an attempt to stop the State from prosecuting him on charges that he had made false declarations to the Integrity Commission about his London bank accounts.

Panday continues to claim that he was charged with an offence which was non-existent at the time when the complaints were laid against him, and that the charge ought not to have been brought against him because the limitation period for laying such a charge had expired.

Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee had first dismissed Panday’s motion, and last month, on April 22, the Appeal Court upheld her judgment, dismissing Panday’s appeal with costs. Panday is now seeking leave to take his motion before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This committee is called the "board," and leave to take appeals before the board is usually sought for before the Court of Appeal.

When Panday’s application for leave came up yesterday before Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and Justices Ivor Archie and Paula Mae Weekes, the AG’s attorney, Douglas Mendes SC, told the court that he would be objecting to the application. His objection was that there was no disputable issue under the Constitution to be decided, and, therefore, no need for Panday to go to the Privy Council.

Panday’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan, disagreed, claiming that there were many constitutional issues to be determined.

In light of the opposing views, CJ Sharma instructed that both sides file full skeleton arguments. He gave the AG 14 days, from yesterday, to file his arguments, and Panday, another 14 days to reply to the AG’s submissions. The matter was then adjourned to July 25, 2005.