Former US diplomat Stephen Lesniak, who was kidnapped by bandits during the 2003 spree, has stated that he knows nothing of Guyanese businessman and drug accused Roger Khan playing any role in his release or the subsequent investigation into the kidnapping.
The ex-diplomat says he is “confused and disturbed” that a link is being made between his kidnapping and Khan.
Lesniak told this to Khan’s lawyer Robert Simels in an e-mail letter. At the time of his kidnapping, which occurred on April 13, 2003, Lesniak was the Regional Security Officer (RSO). The former diplomat is one of several US officials who have been subpoenaed by Khan’s lawyers to testify in his trial.
The prosecution has since filed a motion asking the judge to disallow the subpoenas.
Khan is facing 18 counts of conspiracy to import cocaine into the US between 2001 and 2006 and for heading a criminal enterprise. The trial should have commenced in April but Justice Dora Irizarry said the new start date would be in October. Should he be convicted Khan could be sentenced to life in prison.
In the e-mail dated March 26, Lesniak told Simels that having read the correspondence he was forced to respond to “clarify what I believe are misconceptions regarding the incident of my kidnapping.” He said that he could not offer any assistance in the lawyer’s representation of Khan as he had “no knowledge of Mr Khan before, during or for some time after my kidnapping in Guyana. I became aware of Mr Khan only through the media after my name, and the incident, was linked to his following his arrest for what was reported as narcotics trafficking.”
He said if efforts were made by Khan to secure his release they “have remained to this day unknown to me and my wife, who is equally adamant that she had had no contact with Mr Khan before, during or after the incident, nor any prior knowledge of Mr Khan, nor knowledge of any involvement by Mr Khan during or following the incident. We are both very confused and disturbed by any alleged associations.” Lesniak’s wife, who was his fiancée at the time of his kidnapping, is Guyanese.
Further, Lesniak said, if Khan had any contact with any persons during the incident or subsequent investigation, they remain unknown to him. He suggested that efforts be “made to contact those persons… I departed Guyana several days after the incident and have never returned, nor have I kept abreast of any current events.”
Simels in response to Lesniak told the ex-diplomat that he still feels that his testimony may be “invaluable at the trial.” He said that “very fact of your kidnapping is significant in establishing the climate and other related aspects of Guyana during the period 2002-2003.”
Khan is claiming that several of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who visited Guyana after the kidnapping met and communicated with him to obtain intelligence and assistance in the recovery of the man.
Lesniak was released mere hours after he was kidnapped, before the FBI agents arrived in Guyana.
Khan said that the agents communicated with him and attempted to capture the kidnappers and also in regard to additional activities involving the country by telephone and e-mail.
The defence said they want Lesniak to testify in relation to Khan’s efforts in relation to his release.
Lesniak was kidnapped on April 13, 2003 while playing golf at the Lusignan Golf Course, East Coast Demerara and he was released at around 7:30pm the same night. The diplomat, who is an ex-US Marine captain, trained in combat, was snatched by two teenaged boys.
He had turned up at the golf course at around 8 am on that morning and was playing at the eastern end of the ground near a trench separating the golf course from the canefields when he was grabbed and thrown to the ground and his caddies raised an alarm. Unofficial reports had indicated that a hefty ransom was paid for the man’s release. Nine FBI agents had arrived in Guyana to probe the kidnapping and following his kidnap the army and the police had immediately launched a search of the backlands of Annandale and Buxton where it was reported he had been taken. Later it was reported that the man was held in a church in Buxton. His kidnapping was the 18th since the country’s crime wave spiralled out of control.
Meanwhile, Khan’s lawyers have sent subpoenas to all the FBI agents who would have visited Guyana following the kidnapping and to agents who would have met with him at the Ocean View Hotel after he was named a drug trafficker in the US State Department 2006 drug report.
The defence is asking the FBI agents who would have investigated Lesniak’s kidnapping to provide all documents, reports and other information relating to the man’s kidnapping and the efforts to capture notorious wanted man and prison escapee, Shawn Brown. Brown, one of the five 2002 prison escapees, was killed shortly after the kidnapping and it was alleged he was involved in that crime. The defence also wants from the agents, copies of all e-mails or other communication with Khan, the government of Guyana, the US State Department, the US Department of Justice, and the FBI with regard to Guyana for the period of April 2003 or December 2003. They want Michael Thomas, a US official formerly stationed at the embassy here, to testify in relation to the March 6, 2006 meeting at Ocean View.
Khan’s lawyers also want all documents that led to his inclusion in the drug report and also documents relating to several named persons who were arrested for drug-related crimes in the US.
Fishing expedition
In their motion to quash the subpoenas sought by Khan’s lawyers, the prosecution has labelled them as “fishing expeditions” and has argued that Khan is trying to circumvent the normal court procedure.
In relation to the defence seeking documentation for persons who have been charged for drug trafficking and who they feel may be used as witnesses during the trial, the prosecution said these are irrelevant unless the persons testify at the trials.
Also the prosecution pointed out that should the information sought end up in “the wrong hands” they can be “used to intimidate, harass and harm possible witnesses and their families.” The motion to dismiss said that although the government always has a strong interest in protecting its witnesses and those close to them, “that interest is particularly heightened in this case.”
