Alexander vs DPP

BECAUSE of a change in the Integrity in Public Life Act, the three charges laid against former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday is now headed for the High Court following a constitutional point raised by his attorneys. The situation arises from the fact that Mr Panday was charged under the 1987 Act which no longer exists since it was repealed by the 2002 Act proclaimed by then President Arthur NR Robinson on November 6, 2000. To the layman, the difficulty here may appear to be only technical, and in fact it is. But it is a technicality which has apparently thrown Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicholls, the prosecution and even the defence into a procedural terra incognita, with nothing being done to advance the matter since he adjourned the case three months ago. Because of this vacuum, the Chief Magistrate has had to put off hearing the cases again, this time to October 20.

The seemingly anomalous situation was raised as a preliminary issue by Mr Panday's lead attorney Allan Alexander SC who pointed out that the charges were laid under an old Act that was repealed in 2002. Mr Alexander argued a pre-trial point that it is constitutionally wrong for his client to be charged under a law that no longer exists. Three months ago, in response to Mr Alexander's claim, the Chief Magistrate found merit in the argument and ruled that the matter should be determined by the High Court. As a result of this decision, readers may now be wondering whether the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed the Police to lay the charges may have erred. In other words, should the charges have been laid under the old or the new Act? The issue appears to be an interesting one; how does the law treat a situation such as this? When an act is repealed, does it mean that offences allegedly committed under it cannot be brought to court? Are Mr Panday's lawyers correct in claiming that it was wrong to charge him under the old act? Who is wrong, the DPP or Mr Alexander? Senior Counsel pointed out that the three charges against Mr Panday were laid in September 2002 for offences allegedly committed in April 1997, March 1998 and December 1999.

It seems to us that charges can only be laid under the law existing when the offences were alleged to have occurred, but what happens when that law no longer exists, having been repealed and replaced by another? In finding merit in Mr Alexander's constitutional point, it seems that both the Chief Magistrate and the defence were at a loss as to how to proceed, hence nothing was done over the last three months. According to the CM, no action was filed in the High Court because there was no precedent for anyone to follow. The defence, he explained to Newsday, were also not sure if they had to file a constitutional motion to raise the issues argued in the Magistrates' Court. However, after a brief meeting with the defence, the CM said he had decided to forward his order to the High Court where the constitutional issue would be resolved. We believe that the delay in this important matter is unfortunate. These are charges laid against a former Prime Minister of the country and we believe they should be handled with some sense of urgency. We would expect then that, when the constitutional action is filed, the High Court would proceed with dispatch to hear it. Apart from the nature of the charges, the legal point raised by Mr Alexander is interesting. How does one interpret the law in these circumstances?