Justice Seepersad speaks out

Before him is a judicial review application by several of the Piarco Airport corruption accused who are seeking to stop a magistrate from hearing the corruption case against them.

At the start of hearing yesterday, Seepersad invited attorneys to voice any concerns they may have with him presiding over the application.

“Having regard to these recent developments, the court wishes to reiterate that it has no control over the matters that are placed on its docket but, as always, the court shall unapologetically continue to fearlessly and impartially discharge its constitutional obligations in a way that is transparent and judicious, even if its attempt at proficiency causes discomfort in some quarters,” he said.

He further explained that when the case came to him, he referred it to the judge-led case calendering committee to make a decision on whether it should be reassigned.

Seepersad said having considered the issue, the committee found no rational basis to remove it from his docket.

“Over the last few weeks there has been a significant degree of disquiet and misinformation in the public domain in relation to the methodology and manner adopted with respect to the assignment of certain matters to this particular judge.

“Some three days after scurrilous social media statements made their way onto the front page of a daily newspaper, the Judiciary issued a statement which sought to explain the computerised random nature of the docketing system under the Civil Proceedings Rules.

This was followed by welcomed statements by the Law Association and leading members of the bar.” He said for him, the public’s confidence in the administration of justice was of paramount importance.

Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald, who leads a team of attorneys including Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein for former UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, former ministers Sadiq Baksh and Brian Kuei Tung and former Airports Authority executives Amrith Maharaj and Tyrone Gopee and companies Northern Construction Limited and Maritime General Insurance, said they had no concern or objection to Seepersad hearing the matter.

Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, who represents the Director of Public Prosecutions who is seeking to intervene in the matter, said he had “absolutely no issue,” adding that he was also pleased the Law Association had spoken out in defence of the judge.

In their application for judicial review, the Piarco Airport corruption accused, who are before Senior Magistrate Ejenny Espinet in the Piarco 2 inquiry, are seeking to have the magistrate removed from hearing their almost completed case on the basis of bias.

They contend that in her rejection of their no-case submission on February 10, Espinet concluded that there was a prima facie case made out against them when she had no jurisdiction to make such a finding.

They have alleged that the magistrate in her “flawed” ruling made a series of conclusive adverse findings against them and had already reached a conclusion on their committal without giving them an opportunity to advance their defence.

Lawyers for the accused have asked Espinet to recuse herself and she is expected to rule on these submissions on Friday.

Galbaransingh, Ferguson and the others are charged with a series of criminal offences arising out of the construction of the Piarco Airport Development Project dating back to 2002.