Mustill knocks Sharma’s conduct

It was during a flight from London on January 5, 2006, that aspects of the Panday case were discussed. Although it was raised during the impeachment inquiry, it was only yesterday that Mustill commented on the issue.

“It shows us what kind of judge he (Sharma) is. If a judge was hearing a serious political case at the Old Bailey (London) and Mr Cassel runs into him and they discussed the case, there would have been a serious uproar in society. But he has not been charged for that...”

Mustill was also critical of Sharma telling Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls to pay particular attention to skeletal arguments in the Panday trial. “That is mind-boggling, he (Mc Nicolls) was a senior magistrate, not a junior mid-shipman.”

But Geoffrey Robertson QC, lead attorney for Sharma, said his client said those things because Mc Nicolls was going off on his honeymoon to Spain before judgment was delivered in the case.

Yesterday, Robertson said Sharma was a victim of powerful people.

“The Chief Justice is an innocent man falsely accused of a crime which could destroy him,” Robertson added.

He also accused Attorney General John Jeremie of abusing his office by putting pressure on HCL Chief Executive Officer Michael Anthony Fifi to help out Mc Nicolls by re-purchasing a parcel of land at Trincity against company policy.

“That is very frightening,” the British QC added. He said it must have been most horrific for Sharma to see in the newspapers that he was accused of fixing the Basdeo Panday integrity trial.

In an address lasting three hours, Robertson said Sharma was the only person in the impeachment inquiry who behaved honourably and properly and he hopes that the three-member tribunal would deliver its decision before the Chief Justice retires next January 24.

The eight-day old inquiry ended at 6.32 pm with chairman Lord Mustill saying the tribunal would take some time in handing in its report to President George Maxwell Richards. Mustill and fellow members, Sir Vincent Floissac QC and Dennis Morrison QC, will meet at Winsure building, Port-of-Spain today to deliberate on the report before jetting off to their respective countries.

“But I can assure you that the report will be handed in before the general elections,” Mustill told the half-filled courtroom.

Earlier, Reginald Armour SC, counsel to the tribunal, and Stanley Marcus SC, lead attorney for Mc Nicolls, addressed the inquiry. Just before he ended his presentation, Robertson asked the tribunal members to look out the winJustice, the Red House and us here, the Clico building. You can’t see inside it, you can’t see who sent the cheque (to Mc Nicolls) and how the mess was cleaned up.”

Robertson spent most of his time on the $400,000 cheque sent to Mc Nicolls soon after CL Financial executive chairman Lawrence Duprey had given evidence in the Panday trial. He said Jeremie tipped off CL Financial executive and PNM treasurer Louis Andre Monteil “telling them to clean up their mess and potentially criminal activity. The Attorney General was tipping off his friend. The police should have been provided with the cheque before the trail went cold.”

Robertson said that Anthony Maharaj who sent the $400,000 cheque to Mc Nicolls never intended to buy any property. Fifi, he said, never wanted to change company policy and re-purchase a property. “Fifi was like the fly in the ointment, he did not want to change company policy to help Monteil’s friend. He had to be persuaded.” Robertson continued, “it was like a gangster movie, someone had to bring in someone to show Fifi that Government wanted to help Mc Nicolls. The Attorney General was using his office to persuade Fifi to help out Mc Nicolls.”

Robertson said Mc Nicolls’s land was purchased for $3.9 million — $300,000 more than he could have gotten on the open market. “We don’t know if it was a reward for convicting Panday,” Robertson wondered.

Mustill intervened, “That may be reprehensible, but we are investigating the conduct of the Chief Justice. We cannot impeach the Attorney General, he is not on trial here.” Robertson said when Mc Nicolls received the cheque, he behaved as if it was a bribe. “The bagman does not give him a receipt, he puts it straight in his account and uses it. Then, he goes to the Chief Justice.”

Robertson said that on March 31, 2006, there was a query about the cheque. “Somebody knows about it, Mr Mc Nicolls is in a state of panic. On April 4, he goes to the Attorney General, a man terrified about a police inquiry. He then issues a receipt to himself from himself.” Mustill added, “That document does not show that he makes out a receipt to him, that is nonsense.”dow. “There is a dark shadow, cast over the Hall of