Former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, his wife Oma, former Cabinet Minister Carlos John, and businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh have all been cleared of corruption allegations connected to the establishment of the Piarco International Airport after spending nearly two decades in court.
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, made the announcement while appearing before Magistrate Adia Mohammed in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court yesterday morning. He said he would exercise his constitutional discretion to drop the charges against the group.
- Advertisement -
Gaspard clarified that his choice was based on the slim chance that his office would succeed in getting convictions in the case.
He added that numerous significant witnesses have passed away since the defendants were indicted in 2006 and that one critical witness is now elderly and resides abroad. The accused had a “fair argument,” he said, that there was “presumed, presumptive, and specific” prejudice against them in the case.
Following an examination by Canadian forensic expert Robert Lindquist, four cases involving the airport project were brought against the organization.
A group of businesses and government officials were accused of crimes in connection with the suspected theft of $19 million in the first case, also known as Piarco 1.
Apart from Galbaransingh, the group also included former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung, former national security minister Russell Huggins, former Nipdec chairman Edward Bayley (now deceased), former Maritime General executives John Smith (now deceased), Steve Ferguson, and Barbara Gomes, Northern Construction Finance director Amrith Maharaj, and Kuei Tung’s then-girlfriend Renee Pierre.
Many members of the organization and other public officials were also charged separately in connection with a different case known as Piarco 2 that involved an alleged larger conspiracy.
In the Piarco 3 case, a £25,000 bribe purportedly given by John and Galbaransingh and accepted by Panday and his wife as an enticement for the airport project was at issue. Just Pierre is involved in the Piarco 4 case.
The Piarco 2 case was the subject of a legal challenge in 2019, following the retirement of former senior magistrate Ejenny Espinet while the preliminary investigation was almost finished. The decision required that the preliminary investigation into the Piarco 2 case, which was also before Espinet and left unfinished upon her retirement, as well as the Piarco 3 inquiry, be resumed before a new magistrate.
The Piarco 4 is still unfinished as well.
The Piarco 1 case’s defendants appealed the former chief magistrate Sherman McNicolls’ decision to commit them to stand trial for the allegations, and the Privy Council of the United Kingdom upheld their appeal in June of last year.
The Privy Council found that McNicolls should have maintained their request for him to recuse himself from the case because he was “hopelessly compromised” as a result of an ongoing property transaction with Clico and the assistance of former attorney general John Jeremie, SC, in helping him settle it.
The Privy Council noted: “Given that everything was happening in the full flare of publicity his mind must have been in turmoil. It is not difficult to imagine his gratitude. He has the Attorney General to thank for resolving his serious financial problems and for shutting down an investigation into his reprehensible conduct.”
After learning the case’s verdict, DPP Gaspard released a press statement in which he emphasized that either the investigation needed to be reopened or the defendants had to consent to charges being brought against them in the High Court without going through the PI procedure.
Gaspard stated that he would only decide whether it should be reopened after taking into account many public interest issues, such as the case’s age, the expenditures the State has already invested, and the requirement to show the State’s commitment to pursuing claims of fraud against the populace. He added that it would be preferable to hold a combined trial for all the accusations brought out by the four Piarco cases.
Gasper remarked, “It has been my public position that taking Piarco 1 to trial would have been oppressive if not legally nettlesome while the other matters related to the airport project were in the train, bearing in mind that there were commonly accused in both sets of matters.”
Last year, when Piarco 3 was brought before Magistrate Mohammed, the group’s attorneys argued that the restart would be onerous because of the State’s “inexcusable and inordinate” delays in bringing the case.
Chase Pegus and Justin Phelps represented the Pandays, while Sophia Chote, SC, and Samantha Ramsaran defended John. Rajiv Persad acted as Galbaransingh’s representative.
In September of last year, Magistrate Mohammed ultimately denied the request for a suspension of the proceedings.
Magistrate Mohammed shared: “I am therefore satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the delay complained of has not resulted in prejudice to the applicants such that it may be contended that they cannot receive a fair trial.”
She continued, “I am also satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the continued prosecution of the applicants is not unconscionable, oppressive, and a misuse of the process of the court.”
On behalf of the majority of the defendants in the other three Piarco cases, British King’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald wrote to Gaspard in November of last year and requested a similar delay. Fitzgerald outlined six primary arguments for why they believed Gaspard should use his constitutionally granted discretion to make the risky decision.
Fitzgerald stated that the DPP not only has the authority to take that action but also has a responsibility to do so in his capacity as an impartial “minister of justice” if doing so will serve the purposes of justice and the public interest.
Fitzgerald’s principal defense was that the action was required to uphold the moral integrity of the criminal justice system in light of severe allegations of political meddling in the probe that resulted in the charges against his clients.
Fitzgerald also argued that because the four cases have been ongoing for over 20 years, his client’s right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay has been violated. He also mentioned Jeremie’s participation in the cases, including his former leadership of the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB), which conducted the investigations and brought the accusations.
Although Gaspard has not yet made his conclusions public regarding the other cases, it is anticipated that he will do so when those cases are heard later this year.
The disqualification of Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, and the nation’s US attorneys, Sequor Law, from representing T&T in a multimillion civil asset forfeiture lawsuit against some of the accused individuals and corporations in the Piarco cases raised public alarm in April of last year. Florida Circuit Court Judge Reemberto Diaz issued the disqualification order.
The judgment was made in light of Armour apparently underplaying his representation of Kuei Tung in the regional proceedings some years ago.
Armour has denied any wrongdoing, saying he told the court about his involvement based on his recall while traveling abroad. In addition, he said that despite having the chance to verify the facts, he was not given the chance to rectify the record.
Faris Al-Rawi, a former attorney general, was chosen to serve as this nation’s alternative client representative, but the choice was contested.
Three justices from Florida’s Third Appellate Court affirmed their colleague’s decision in a ruling they issued early last month.
Now in the US, Al-Rawi is defending T&T in that civil case.
