12 years later, Piarco II inquiry still going on

who represents businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh. Though a ceremonial opening for the new law term is scheduled for September 16, Espinet has also penciled in that date for further submissions from another attorney, Edward Fitzgerald QC. Defence lawyers yesterday continued their arguments against the proceedings.

saying there was no case. The “Piarco II” inquiry is one of several cases in relation to the airport project which have been going on in the courts for decades. In January 2008.

some of the accused persons were committed to stand trial at the High Court in “Piarco I” by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls. But Mc Nicolls, who died of cancer in 2012, never lived to see this matter tried. To date, there is no word on when the “Piarco I” matter will be heard in the High Court. A third matter.

called “Piarco III”, is also understood to be pending in court relating to a different pool of accused persons. “Piarco III” said to be awaiting adjudication by the Privy Council on a legal question. Meanwhile, over the years some of the accused have died or pleaded guilty in foreign courts. In 2006, Edward Bayley, former chairman of NIPDEC, died in 2006 after a prolonged illness. In the same year.

Americans Eduardo Hillman-Waller and Raul Gutierrez pleaded guilty in United States Federal Court as part of a plea agreement. They have already served out their sentences. Work on the Piarco International Airport started in 1997 and has been the subject of two official inquiries.

one conducted by Justice Lennox Deyalsingh and the second by former Chief Justice Clinton Bernard, which lasted several months. The ongoing charges stemmed from the findings of the Clinton Inquiry. Investigations were conducted by Canadian forensic accountant.

Bob Lindquist and began under former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and were accelerated under the PNM administration from 2002. The Section 34 fiasco had an impact on the “Piarco II” inquiry.

which was put on hold as some of the accused persons sought to use the section – which imposed a statute of limitation – to seek their freedom. Their bid failed as legislation was brought to repeal the overarching law that related to the matter. The Privy Council also upheld the Parliament’s right to change the law to prevent certain classes of accused persons from applying to court for freedom.