AG: No ‘faux pas’ in State’s case against Panday

Attorney General Glenda Morean said yesterday that there was no “faux pas” on the part of the State in the case against Basdeo Panday.

Morean was commenting on the fact that the case against the Opposition Leader has been referred to the High Court 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, 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. Asked whether the State committed a ‘faux pas’, Morean said: “Not at all. Because when he was charged, I saw the legal opinions. And I myself looked at the law and I was comfortable (with the fact that he could be charged under the old law)”.

Morean said Section 27 of the Interpretation Act reserves the right to bring action under a law if the action occurs prior to the repeal of the  law and while the law was still in effect. She said she felt that the Court of Appeal should not have a problem with the issue. Section 27 (1) states: Where a written law repeals or revokes a written law, the repeal or revocation does not, except...otherwise provided,...affect the previous operation of the written law so repealed or revoked, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder”. Morean stressed however that all her comments were based on newspaper reports of what transpired in the court since she hadn’t yet seen a transcript of the proceedings.

Panday was 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 and 1999. The charge was laid under the Integrity in Public Life Act 1987, but that Act was repealed by then President Arthur N R Robinson on November 2000. On the fact that the new forms needed for the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 have not been provided to the Integrity Commission, Morean said this matter was being “actively pursued”. She said the forms had been drafted. But the regulations are currently before the Legislative Review Committee, a Cabinet sub-committee, for consideration. When this is complete, the regulations would come before the Cabinet and then to the Parliament.