The expected start of trial proceedings stemming from the fraud charges against former Minister of Housing Mohamed Irfaan Ali were again delayed today as his lawyer signalled that he would be filing another application at the Court of Appeal for a stay.
Ali, the opposition PPP/C’s presidential hopeful, is currently before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan on 19 fraud charges stemming from the sale of land in the ‘Pradoville 2’ Housing Scheme.
Last week, Ali lost his bid have the matter stayed after Appellate Judge Dawn Gregory explained that having looked at the merits of the substantive appeal, it was clear that it had no arguable prospect of success.
She noted that while the Appellate Court can review a charge by virtue of judicial review, that power ought to be exercised sparingly and in extreme circumstances.
During a hearing today before the Chief Magistrate, attorney Devindra Kissoon, who represented the accused, stated that given the Appeal Court’s ruling, a new application is to be made. He then requested time in an attempt to fix a date with the Appeal Court.
The Chief Magistrate later adjourned the matter until September 27th, when the prosecutor is expected to state whether they are prepared to commence Ali’s trial.
The charges, which detail offences alleged to have occurred between the period of September 2010 and March, 2015, involve housing allocations to six Cabinet members—former president Bharrat Jagdeo, Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon and Ministers Priya Manickchand, Dr Jennifer Westford, Robert Persaud and Clement Rohee—along with other persons with connections to the then PPP/C government.
After the charges were instituted against him last year by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Ali moved to the High Court against the Commissioner of Police, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Chief Magistrate, and Detective Corporal Muninlall Persaud, seeking a declaration that there was no statutory or common law duty to obtain a valuation prior to the sale of property.
Ali wanted the court to also issue an order quashing the DPP’s decision to institute the charges in the first place, which he contended was irrational, unlawful, void and of no effect.
The former minister was asking for general, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages not less than $100,000; costs, and any further order or directions which the court deemed just and warranted in the circumstances.
His contention was that the conduct alleged in the charges, even if true, cannot in law meet the high standard of misconduct required to support the charges laid against him.
However, High Court Judge Franklyn Holder last month ruled that Ali does not have a constitutional right not to be charged, contrary to what he contended in a challenge. As a result, Ali appealed his loss. He has argued, among things, that not only do the charges not amount to an offence known to law but that even if proven they would not yield a conviction.
That substantive appeal is yet to be fixed for hearing.
