Justice Franklyn Holder on Friday began hearing legal arguments in the court action challenging the 19 ‘Pradoville 2’ charges laid against former PPP/C Minister of Housing, Mohamed Irfaan Ali.
Following an in-camera hearing, which lasted in excess of half of an hour, Ali’s attorney, Devindra Kissoon, declined to comment on what had transpired. He told reporters that the legal arguments will continue tomorrow and that he would speak to reporters then.
“We certainly don’t want to discuss the matter at this point but I will do so on Thursday…I will give you full clarity,” he said.
In the latter part of last year, Ali was arraigned on 19 conspiracy to defraud charges, stemming from the sale of land in the East Coast of Demerara Housing Scheme, Pradoville 2, allegedly at prices far below value.
The charges, which detail offences alleged to have occurred between the period of September 2010 to March 2015, involve housing allocations to six then 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.
In his urgent fixed date application, Ali (the applicant) is seeking, among other things, a declaration that the particulars of the charges do not constitute an offence known to law and contravene Section 144(4) of the Constitution.
The section provides, “No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence that is more severe in degree or nature than the most severe penalty that might have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed.”
Ali is seeking a declaration that there is no statutory or common law duty to obtain a valuation prior to the sale of property.
In his action, which requests the grant of several orders also, the applicant wants the High Court to quash the Department of Public Prosecutions’ decision to institute the charges in the first place, contending that it was, among other things, irrational, unlawful, void and of no effect.
To this end, he wants the court to declare the charges as unconstitutional.
He wants the court to also declare that the particulars of the offence for the charges do not allege any underlying unlawful conduct and contravene Section 144(4) of the Constitution, and also that the decision to lay the charges constitute an abuse of process.
The former minister is asking for general, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages, not less than $100,000; costs, and any further order or directions which the court deems just and warranted in the circumstances.
Among the orders being sought, Ali wants the court to quash the information sworn on oath by Munilall Persaud in the laying of the charges, on grounds that the charges are among other things, unlawful, void and of no effect.
Meanwhile, in his request for a stay, Ali is asking the High Court to grant him an order of prohibition, restraining the Chief Magistrate or any other magistrate from hearing or attempting to hear or determine or taking any further steps in respect of the charges laid against him, arguing, among other things, that it is also unlawful, void and of no effect.
He is hoping to be granted this order until his challenge in the High Court would have been fully heard and determined.
In his affidavit, he argues that charges laid against him are unknown in law and have no reasonable chance of yielding a conviction.
He mentioned his consideration as a presidential candidate for the PPP/C for the probable 2019/2020 general elections and asked the court to urgently hear his application ahead of probable elections in the coming months.
The Commissioner of Police, DPP, the Chief Magistrate and Detective Corporal Munilall Persaud, are listed as the respondents in the suit.
