Gangar must face integrity charges

Magistrate Ejenny Espinet, presiding in the Port-of-Spain First Magistrates’ Court, ruled yesterday that Gangar must face the charges.

She rejected the submissions of the defence that the prosecution should have brought the charges within six months of the alleged offence, and not within five years as stipulated in the 1987 Act which was repealed in 2000.

Desmond Allum SC had argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the two charges as the prosecution had failed to initiate them within six months of the date in which the matters arose as required by Section 33 (2) of the Summary Courts Act.

As far as Allum was concerned, the charges are statute barred and should be dismissed. He said that in order for Gangar to succeed, he will have to satisfy the court that first, the limitation period for the offences is six months, and secondly, the prosecution initiated the charges well after the six-month deadline had passed.

Allum, who appeared with Rajiv Persad, said Gangar was charged in June 2004 under the 1987 Act, although the Act was repealed and replaced in 2000.

He pointed out that under the 1987 Act, there was a limitation period of five years in which a prosecution could be brought after the person had ceased to be someone in public life. Former prime minister Basdeo Panday, who is facing similar charges, was also charged under the 1987 Act. He filed a constitutional motion challenging this and lost in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The case is now before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Allum said the issue in this matter was whether the limitation period was five years or six months. He said even though the charges were laid under the 1987 Act, proceedings taken under this Act must be prosecuted and continued under and in conformity with the substituted law.

Allum said support for this was found in Section 29(1) of the Interpretation Act. "On the face of Section 29 of the Interpretation Act, we would submit that the clear unambiguous purport of Section 29 is to establish that all proceedings taken under the 1987 Act are to be prosecuted and continued under and in conformity with the 2000 Act."

Espinet was not impressed, however. She said the defence never argued that Gangar could not be tried for the two offences, or that the charges were invalid. She said the defence argued about the limitation period.

In arriving at her decision, Espinet said the Integrity in Public Life Act did not help. She had to resort to the Summary Courts Act and the Limitation Act. "The court is being asked to say that in the middle of an investigation, the law changes, so the offence goes out."

Espinet rejected the submissions and said the charges were properly before her. On the other issue — that the two charges should be heard together — Espinet disagreed, saying because of the seriousness, the charges will be separated.

Persad then indicated that the defence had another submission to make — abuse of process. Espinet gave the defence two weeks in which to put the submission in writing. The State was given another two weeks and the matter was adjourned to November 7.

State attorney Sabrina Dougdeen indicated that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the case. Albert Alkins, Registrar of the Integrity Commission, was present in court.

Gangar is charged with failing to declare to the Integrity Commission, bank accounts held in his name and that of his wife Maureen, in Jersey, Channel Islands, New York, and San Fernando, for the years 1999 and 2000.