Panday fails to stop trial... AGAIN

THE LAWYERS representing former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday failed once again to stop the Chief Magistrate from starting the trial in which he is charged with failing to declare his London back accounts to the Integrity Commission. After almost three years of legal arguments and delays, the trial was set to start yesterday before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magi-strates’ Court. When the case was last called on Monday, the defence put the court on notice that they intended to make further submissions. Before the case was called yesterday, the defence submitted the documents to the court and the prosecution. Panday was present with his attorneys Allan Alexander SC, Desmond Allum SC, Fyard Hosein SC, Rajiv Persad, and Devesh Maharaj. British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel and Senior State attorney Wayne Rajbansie appeared for the State.

Hosein made the submissions on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. He said Panday filed his declarations late for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999, so the Integrity Commission could not review and investigate anything. “The applicant (Panday) has nothing to answer because there was nothing properly before the Integrity Commission,” Hosein added. Hosein said the only charge which the commission could have contemplated against Panday was his failure to file his declaration on time, instead of filing a false declaration. He said the declarations for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999, were all filed out of time. “They are not declarations, they were filed out of time. These charges have been misconceived. They can’t stand up to scrutiny by any court. The receipt of the documents by the Integrity Commission was ultra vires. The charges can’t stand up to scrutiny, these charges should be dismissed forthwith.”

Hosein pointed out that under the Integrity in Public Life Act 1987, “persons in public life” had until May 31 of the following year to file their declarations for the preceding year. However, under the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, the Integrity Commission could have given a six-month extension to such persons, with the court giving a further extension if necessary. Hosein said Panday was charged under the 1987 Act and, therefore, with no extension to the persons filing, the charges were null and void. He said Panday was required to file declarations for 1997, 1998, and 1999. On April 4, 1999, the secretary to the Integrity Commission received a declaration from Panday for the year ended December 31, 1997. The declaration was placed before the commission on April 16, 1999.

On December 23, 1999, the secretary of the commission received a declaration from Panday for the year ended December 31, 1998. On January 14, 2000, the declaration was placed before the commission. On March 21, 2001, the commission received a declaration from Panday for the year ended December 31, 1999. Hosein submitted that the commission had no power to review the declarations submitted by his client. The act of the commission, he added, was ultra vires. Hosein also argued that the Chief Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the charges. In response, Cassel said because Panday filed his declarations late, did not mean that the commission could not have accepted them. That is an absurdity, he declared.

“Then, a person merely has to serve it late. The public’s interest will not be served by that. That will create a scandal. The Integrity Commission is obliged to receive, examine, review and conduct such investigation as it sees fit. This highly technical argument should be rejected,” Cassel added. While Hosein took two full hours to make his submissions, Cassel responded in just 28 minutes. Mc Nicolls was even faster. He took no time to deliver his decision. He ruled right away. Mc Nicolls said he was satisfied that the charges were properly laid and he overruled the submissions of the defence. But Hosein did not leave it there. He said the entire integrity legislation was fraught with problems. He said it would do more damage to one’s reputation if this case was allowed to go on. He said the defence wants to test this matter in the High Court.

Hosein pointed out that a similar point was raised by former energy minister Finbar Gangar in a judicial review matter filed in court. He also stated that hearing of a petition for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal in Panday’s constitutional motion was listed for February 16 in the Privy Council. Again Cassel resisted. He said he had the local witnesses coming to court for two days and witnesses from England are due in Trinidad on Monday. He said this case has been adjourned so many times, and pleaded for the case to start today. Mc Nicolls turned down the defence’s request and said the trial will begin this morning.