5 meetings with Sharma leaves Henderson concerned

By the time he had held his fifth meeting with the Chief Justice, Mr Sat Sharma on a particular case currently before the courts, Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson, reported that he felt extremely concerned. In a statement which forms part of the documents of complaint against Sharma, dated January 10, 2005, Henderson detailed his discussions with Sharma at five separate meetings. Four of these meetings — the first, second, third and fifth were held at Sharma’s request, while the fourth meeting was held at Henderson’s request. All five meetings were held between December 6, 2004 and December 14, 2004. Henderson’s six-page statement of January 10, 2005 suggested that he came away with certain general impressions.

1) That he and  his colleagues in the DPP’s department, were proceeding to charge a particular individual, notwithstanding that they had full knowledge of a conspiracy to falsely implicate that particular individual;
2) that he (Henderson) to a lesser extent, but more particularly certain senior members of his department were perceived as racist and that persons harboured the suspicion that the charges against a particular individual might have been racially motivated;
3) that persisting with these charges could have repercussions for his job as DPP.

A detailed summary of each meeting was given in Henderson’s statement. At the very first meeting, which took place at around 9 am on December 6, Henderson was asked whether he had consulted with any attorneys outside the DPP’s office, and how he could have charged a particular individual on the basis of the evidence of a certain witness, especially so long after the incident. At the same meeting Henderson was told that should an investigation be held into this matter it could raise serious questions  as to “his (Henderson’s) suitability to  the office.” Allegations of racism also surfaced at this meeting as well as the charge that there were efforts to suborn witnesses in the particular case. Henderson denied all the allegations.

Two and a half hours later on the same day Henderson  was again summoned by Sharma. This time a former officer of the DPP’s office was present. Sharma sought confirmation on whether a document had come into the DPP’s office  alleging a conspiracy to falsely implicate the particular individual. The former member of the DPP’s office stated that he had a “hazy” recollection of receiving something but could not give any specifics. Henderson insisted that there was nothing handed over to him or in the records of the department  to substantiate the suggestion  about a conspiracy against anyone. On December 9, Henderson  was summoned again by Sharma and showed a letter appearing in a newspaper, favourable to a certain individual and indicating the high esteem with which the accused was held. Henderson was told that his action could impact negatively on the State and the judiciary as a whole since it would be the State and Judiciary which would be blamed (for the charges) and not Henderson. This sentiment had been communicated to Attorney General John Jeremie, Henderson was told.

Once again the question of the existence of correspondence  on the allegation of suborning witnesses was raised and Henderson maintained that his office had no record of any such correspondence. He was told that the alleged conspiracy was known by others, including a prominent Queen’s Counsel, a former officer of the DPP’s office and that this could very well form the basis of a review of the particular matter before the court.  Henderson was again told that questions about his  suitability for the post could be raised. Henderson reported in his January 10 statement that he felt very concerned that his office  could be accused of possessing information alleging a conspiracy to falsely implicate someone and that he was suppressing it.

On December 12, Sharma  and Henderson  met again. And Henderson reported to Sharma  that he had found nothing in the files. The suggestion was made that he continue the search. On December 14  Sharma, Henderson and the Attorney General met on an  unrelated issue. After the AG left, the discussion between Henderson and Sharma  moved again to the particular  matter. Henderson reported that he received from one of the attorneys representing the particular individual a copy of the letter to which Sharma had been making reference (which contained the conspiracy allegation).  Henderson said several searches of the files in his department had failed to turn up such a letter.

Henderson was reportedly told that now that the letter had surfaced this was sufficient reason for stopping the case against the particular individual when next it came up for hearing. Henderson reported that he felt concerned because he believed that Sharma’s  contention was without merit. Henderson consulted with someone who advised that he seek a meeting with the author of the letter in which the conspiracy allegation was made. He called the author, and arranged a meeting for 2.30pm on December 17. The author never came and despite a second invitation, never responded.Henderson said he was therefore forced to conclude that the allegation was without substance and continued with the prosecution of this particular individual.