Abolish inquiries

The case is the so-called “Piarco II” inquiry. Several people are accused of grave misdeeds in relation to the Piarco International Airport project in the case. It is just one in a battery of proceedings. None of those proceedings are anywhere near completion.

In 2008, several of the accused in “Piarco II” were committed by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls to stand trial at the High Court on related charges. Mc Nicolls never lived to see the verdict. To date, no High Court proceedings have begun.

There is another case, the “Piarco III” inquiry, which is understood to be in legal limbo awaiting Privy Council adjudication on a legal point.

Over the years, accused persons in the case have either died or fallen ill. Meanwhile, as the Trinidad and Tobago court system plays itself out, two Americans, Eduardo Hillman-Waller and Raul Gutierrez, pleaded guilty since 2006 in a United States Federal Court as part of a plea agreement.

Without prejudice to the right of the court to determine these matters as well as the right of the accused persons to be presumed innocent, it is plain to see that the Piarco experience shows the current structure of our court system is ill-suited to processing allegations of white-collar crime. The preliminary inquiry, already cumbersome in relation to murder cases, is fatally so in complex fraud matters involving millions of pages of evidence.

Therefore, we welcome the announcement yesterday by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley that both the Government and Opposition intend to cooperate on abolishing preliminary inquiries.

“We have to try to get justice without the intervening of preliminary inquiries,” Rowley said. “We had some commitment to deal with that as a matter of despatch.” The Parliament must act sooner rather than later on this matter. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, part of the fallout of the Section 34 debacle was how it managed to scuttle what was a genuinely required reform – the abolition of inquires.

The irony is that the unanimous passage of that bad law and its early proclamation served to bring us to the point where we are today: a system which still has cases chugging along for decades in the Magistrates Court.

We also welcome Rowley’s commitment to continuing talks with the Opposition, as well as the Government’s reversal on the question of the leadership of the Joint Select Committee on National Security which will now be headed, appropriately, by an Independent senator.

The policy of abolishing jury trials requires further examination. It may be useful in specific white-collar cases such as the Piarco inquiry. It may also be a pragmatic way of dealing with a situation in which there are often reports of jury tampering.

More uncertain, however, is the position in relation to the appointment of a Police Commissioner.

Rowley worryingly referred to a “conflict of interest” situation and suggested a deliberate effort afoot to frustrate the ongoing appointment process. None of this vagueness is helpful. Also somewhat vague was the stance in relation to the death penalty.

One sore spot from yesterday’s talks was the fact that there was no joint press conference. In electing to hold separate briefings, both parties missed an opportunity to do what the population longs them to do: present a united front on crime.

This is a democracy. We do not expect a national unity government.

But an image of cohesion and cooperation would be of comfort to the national population. Everybody is anxious.

For now, we paraphrase the Prime Minister by saying the proof is in the pudding. It seems to us the path is open for the abolition of inquiries.

If there is anything that results from yesterday’s talks, on this one matter progress should be made.