Panday trial goes to High Court

THE CASE against former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday is heading to the High Court. And it is not because the magistrate has decided there is sufficient evidence to go before a jury. It is because Panday’s defence team successfully argued a constitutional point that the three charges against him were filed under a law that no longer exists.

After hearing submissions from the defence and the prosecution yesterday, Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nichols said he found merit in the defence claim and ruled that this was a matter to be determined by the High Court. As a result, the charges brought under the Integrity in Public Life Act 1987 were adjourned to July 16 for mention. Panday’s legal team is now expected to file a constitutional motion in the High Court seeking a declaration that it was wrong for the State to lay the charges under the 1987 Act.

The ruling by the Chief Magistrate brought proceedings to an abrupt end with Panday, the political leader of the UNC, smiling as he left the precincts of the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court. Panday, 69, is charged with failing to declare an account at the National Westminster Bank in London in his name and that of his wife, Oma, for the years 1997, 1998, 1999. The stage was set yesterday for the start of the trial. British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel, the prosecutor, was present with his juniors Devan Rampersad and Angelica Teelucksingh. Three witnesses from the NatWest Bank in London were in Trinidad, although they were not in the court building.

The entire defence team was present - Allan Alexander SC, Desmond Allum SC, Fyard Hosein and Rajiv Persad. The Chief Magistrate entered at 9.05 am and called the case. Cassel informed the court that the defence had an application about which he knew nothing. Alexander began his submissions immediately, asking the court to refer the case to the High Court on the ground that the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court were in contravention of the Constitution. Alexander produced two Trinidad and Tobago cases to support his argument - Rex Lasalle v the Attorney General (1971), and convicted killer Darrin Roger Thomas v Cipriani Baptiste (2000).

Alexander revealed that the first charge was laid on September 18, 2002 for an offence allegedly committed on April 9, 1999. The second charge was laid on the same date for an offence allegedly committed between March 15 and 27, 2002. The third charge was also laid in September 2002 for the alleged offence between December 19 and 24, 1999. Alexander pointed out that Panday was charged under the Integrity in Public Life Act 1987, but that Act was repealed by the 2000 Act, and proclaimed by then President Arthur NR Robinson on November 6, 2000.

Cassel said Alexander “was a million miles away” from showing that Panday would not receive a fair trial. Cassel said no one knew for sure when the Integrity Commission started the investigations against Panday. Cassel completed his response in quick time saying that Alexander’s submissions were totally without substance. However, in a flash, Chief Magistrate Mc Nichols ruled. He said Alexander’s submissions contained merit and it is one for the High Court to determine.