Political bias against Panday, says Newman

“The summons was dated September 18, 2002. It is a matter of public record, almost to the date one month before to a critical general elections. This is not a mere coincidence, this was differential treatment to Mr Panday. The election campaign was in full swing at the time, at a very critical juncture in the life of Trinidad and Tobago,” he said.

Newman completed his submission before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court. He is seeking to have the charges against Panday stayed on the ground of abuse of process. Mc Nicolls has reserved judgment.

Newman continued, “the timing of the issuance of proceedings against Mr Panday is significant in indicating that there was an ulterior political purpose, as was the extensive leaking of the Integrity Commission’s investigation.”

Newman asked, “has the executive behaved in a way that is acceptable? I say no. Look at the evidence adduced from the Integrity Commission. I invite you (Mc Nicolls) to say this is not a coincidence to bring this prosecution. By seeking a political advantage before the general elections, shows a clear abuse of process.”

Newman accused the Commission of leaking information on Panday to the media. “That is an indication of a deliberate and intentional exercise of power. Somebody in the Integrity Commission leaked information. It was not a one-off thing, it was every step of the way.”

Newman said the Registrar of the Commission, Albert Alkins, said no one was investigated at the Commission for leaking information. This, he said, was enough evidence to show that Panday was treated differentially.

In response, lead prosecutor Sir Timothy Cassel QC told the magistrate that the jurisdiction to stay proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. He dismissed the allegation that there was political bias against Panday. He rejected claims of malafides by the Commission and/or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in bringing the prosecution.

Cassel said no one acted in bad faith. “If some one alleges bad faith, it is for them to prove bad faith. He must prove bad faith. It was a very bold suggestion.”