JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, July 10, 2025

Steve and Edoo now going to Privy Council

by

20140604

Even as At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan claimed vic­to­ry for the Gov­ern­ment in an ap­peal over the re­peal of the con­tro­ver­sial Sec­tion 34 of the Ad­min­is­tra­tion of Jus­tice (In­dictable Of­fences) Act, the group of fraud ac­cused busi­ness­men and com­pa­nies, who filed the law­suit, still ap­pear to have a glim­mer of hope as they now take their case to the Privy Coun­cil.

While three ap­pel­late judges of the Ap­peal Court yes­ter­day unan­i­mous­ly dis­missed all the grounds raised by busi­ness­men Steve Fer­gu­son and Ameer Edoo and in­sur­ance com­pa­ny Mar­itime Gen­er­al, they si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly agreed that the group was en­ti­tled to con­di­tion­al leave to lodge their fi­nal ap­peal in the British court.

In ad­di­tion to sig­nalling their in­ten­tion to ap­peal, the group was suc­cess­ful in block­ing the con­tin­u­a­tion of a pre­lim­i­nary in­quiry in­to fraud al­le­ga­tions aris­ing out of the $1.6 bil­lion Pi­ar­co In­ter­na­tion­al Air­port project which was put on hold pend­ing the out­come of yes­ter­day's ap­peal.

The ap­pli­ca­tion for the stay was un­op­posed by the le­gal team rep­re­sent­ing the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, who ac­knowl­edged that they had come to an un­der­stand­ing with the group's at­tor­neys that the re­quest would not be chal­lenged by the State.How­ev­er, at­tor­neys for the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) were not as amenable as the State's at­tor­neys, as they said DPP Roger Gas­pard had in­di­cat­ed that he was not will­ing to con­cede to a stay of the crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings.

"The di­rec­tor does not think it ap­pro­pri­ate to con­sent to a stay of the com­mi­tal pro­ceed­ings. He wants to progress with them," at­tor­ney Ian Ben­jamin, who ap­peared for Gas­pard, said.Af­ter hear­ing brief sub­mis­sions on the is­sues from all three par­ties, Ap­pel­late Judges Al­lan Men­don­ca, Pe­ter Ja­madar and Gre­go­ry Smith even­tu­al­ly grant­ed the group's re­quest.Mo­ments be­fore grant­i­ng the group's lat­est ap­pli­ca­tions on the is­sue, Smith and Ja­madar de­liv­ered the 57-page judg­ment which they had joint­ly pre­pared.

Smith who wrote the ma­jor­i­ty of the rul­ing, re­peat­ed­ly re­ject­ed al­le­ga­tions that the re­peal was a plot di­rect­ly tar­get­ing the group as he agreed with the State's con­tention that it was mere­ly done to rec­ti­fy an in­stance of par­lia­men­tary over­sight.While not­ing that the court had con­sid­ered Hansard records as well as tes­ti­mo­ny from Ram­lo­gan in as­cer­tain­ing Par­lia­ment's in­ten­tion in re­peal­ing the leg­is­la­tion, Smith dis­missed the group's claims as "spec­u­la­tive, un­bal­anced and un­fair."

"Even if one could ar­gue that this case of over­sight was not prop­er­ly es­tab­lished, there is no es­cap­ing the con­clu­sion that the true pur­pose of the amend­ment was to cor­rect cer­tain se­ri­ous flaws in the en­act­ment and procla­ma­tion of Sec­tion 34 as op­posed to the nar­row and lim­it­ed 'pur­pose' of de­priv­ing the ap­pel­lants of a Sec­tion 34 de­fence," Smith said. He al­so de­scribed Par­lia­ment's ac­tion as "swift and de­ci­sive."

Smith al­so said that the court could not con­sid­er news­pa­per re­ports over the par­lia­men­tary de­bates that were re­lied on by the group as the those on­ly fo­cused on the ef­fect of the re­peal on the group in­stead of re­flect­ing Par­lia­ment's true in­ten­tion which, he said, was to rec­ti­fy de­fi­cien­cies in the leg­is­la­tion which in­clud­ed con­cerns over very se­ri­ous fraud of­fences not be­ing in­clud­ing in a list of ex­empt­ed cas­es as well as there be­ing no al­lowances for le­git­i­mate de­lays in com­plex cas­es.

In dis­miss­ing the ap­peal, Smith re­ject­ed the group's claim that the re­peal of the law breached the prin­ci­ple of sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers as it in­ter­fered with the role of the Ju­di­cia­ry by di­rect­ing the courts to dis­re­gard all Sec­tion 34 ap­pli­ca­tion filed be­fore the law was over­turned."The ret­ro­spec­tive­ly of the amend­ment en­sured that no one was able to ben­e­fit from this flawed law. It was not in aid or in fur­ther­ance of an at­tempt by the leg­is­la­ture to usurp or in­fringe up­on ju­di­cial pow­er," the judge stat­ed.

He al­so dis­agreed with their sub­mis­sion that the leg­is­la­tion was di­rect­ly tar­get­ed to pre­vent them from es­cap­ing crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion."Even though the am­mend­ment may al­so have had the ap­pel­lants in its sights it was meant to deal with larg­er vices cre­at­ed by the en­act­ment and ear­ly procla­ma­tion of Sec­tion 34," Smith said.

In say­ing that the re­peal did not breach the group's con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to due process of law, Smith not­ed that it was passed by a spe­cial three-fifths ma­jor­i­ty in both Hous­es of Par­lia­ment and that the re­peal was rea­son­ably jus­ti­fi­able in the cir­cum­stances.He al­so de­nied that the group had a le­git­i­mate ex­pec­ta­tion that they would be able to ac­cess the fa­cil­i­ty pro­vid­ed by Sec­tion 34 mere­ly on the ground that it was en­act­ed as law.

"The con­cept that any law which cre­ates rights or ex­pec­ta­tions that can­not lat­er be al­tered or re­voked needs on­ly to be stat­ed to be re­ject­ed," Smith said.While he agreed with Smith's rea­son­ing in the judg­ment, Jus­tice Ja­madar al­so chose to add his voice to the com­men­tary by pro­vid­ing a con­cur­rent judg­ment.Ja­madar not­ed that he felt that the re­peal was a pol­i­cy de­ci­sion rather than a "per­son­al vendet­ta" against the group.

He said while there were el­e­ments of the re­peal which touched on ju­di­cial pow­er, the court would af­ford the Par­lia­ment a "gen­er­ous mar­gin of ap­pre­ci­a­tion" in the case as it was seek­ing to mend flawed leg­is­la­tion."In the end these ap­peals have demon­strat­ed above all else the oner­ous du­ty and re­spon­si­bil­i­ty on the en­tire Par­lia­ment to care­ful­ly scru­ti­nise leg­is­la­tion be­fore en­act­ment; but al­so, the re­al­i­ty that even with all the care in the world, hu­man er­ror, col­lec­tive hu­man er­ror, will at times oc­cur," Ja­madar said.

The case

Af­ter Sec­tion 34 was pro­claimed on Au­gust 31, 2012, ap­prox­i­mate­ly 42 ap­pli­cants filed mo­tions to have their crim­i­nal cas­es dis­missed. The act sought to abol­ish pre­lim­i­nary in­quiries for se­ri­ous crim­i­nal mat­ters in spe­cif­ic cat­e­gories.

It pro­vid­ed that if cas­es had not been start­ed with­in ten years of the date an of­fence had been com­mit­ted, the ac­cused could ap­ply to have the mat­ter dis­missed. Most of the ap­pli­cants filed con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tions af­ter the leg­is­la­tion was re­pealed on Sep­tem­ber 12 last year, ren­der­ing the un­heard ap­pli­ca­tions null and void.

When the law­suits were ini­tial­ly brought be­fore High Court Judge Mi­ra Dean-Ar­mor­er, it was agreed dur­ing a pre­lim­i­nary hear­ing the trio's law­suits would be used as a test case which would de­cide the fate of the oth­er ap­pli­cants.Dean-Ar­mor­er, in judg­ment de­liv­ered in April last year, dis­missed all the grounds raised by ap­pli­cants paving the way for the ap­peal.

Fer­gu­son, Edoo and six of the ap­pli­cants are be­fore the Pi­ar­co II pre­lim­i­nary in­quiry which is be­fore Mag­is­trate Ejen­ny Es­pinet in the Port-of-Spain Mag­is­trates' Court. Some of the oth­ers are al­so be­fore the court on fraud charges re­lat­ed to the project while the rest are on un­re­lat­ed crim­i­nal charges.

The lawyers

The trio's le­gal team in­cludes British QCs Micheal Beloff and Ed­ward Fitzger­ald, Se­nior Coun­sel Fyard Ho­sein and Sophia Chote and at­tor­neys Robin Ot­way and Rishi Dass.Lord David Pan­nick, QC, Al­lan New­man, QC, for­mer So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al Eleanor Don­ald­son-Hon­ey­well, SC, and at­tor­neys Shas­tri Per­sad and Ger­ald Ramdeen rep­re­sent­ed the State.

Time­line

�2 De­cem­ber 2011: The Ad­min­is­tra­tion of Jus­tice (In­dictable Pro­ceed­ings) Act is passed by both Hous­es of Par­lia­ment.

�2 Au­gust 31, 2012: Sec­tion 34 is pro­claimed.

�2 Sep­tem­ber 9, 2012: Un­der the head­line "Pi­ar­co air­port cas­es to be dropped," T&T Guardian re­ports that those charged in the Pi­ar­co Air­port cor­rup­tion case may be able to have the charges against them dropped as a re­sult, since the charges were laid more than sev­en years pre­vi­ous­ly. Among them are UNC fi­nanciers Steve Fer­gu­son and Ish Gal­barans­ingh.

�2 Sep­tem­ber 12, 2012: Par­lia­ment sits to re­peal Sec­tion 34.

�2 Oc­to­ber 2012: 42 ap­pli­cants un­der Sec­tion 34 file con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tions claim­ing their rights were in­fringed by its re­peal.

�2 April 2013: Jus­tice Mi­ra Dean-Ar­mor­er de­liv­ers judg­ment in three of con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tions be­ing used as test cas­es. Dean-Ar­mor­er dis­miss­es all eight grounds raised by the three ap­pli­cants.

�2 May 2013: The three ap­pli­cants file their ap­peal of Dean-Ar­mor­er's judg­ment.

�2 Oc­to­ber 2013: Court of Ap­peal hears sub­mis­sions on the ap­peal for four con­sec­u­tive days.

�2 June 4: Court of Ap­peal dis­miss­es the ap­peal, re­ject­ing all grounds raised by three ap­pel­lants.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored