THE Ombudsman, Justice (rtd) Winston Moore, has publicly admitted that the controversial 25-page report on a $69M fraud case at the New Building Society (NBS) in 2006 was leaked.

However, Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon, maintains that the primary issue revolves around whether or not the former judge “ignored” or “disregarded” the sub judice principle, given that the

matter is currently attracting the attention of the High Court.
He said, “This whole sub judice principle has been breached in this instance and I despair because the Ombudsman sat on the bench…this matter is being heard in the High Court right now. I suppose that the notion that it (the report) was leaked absolves the Ombudsman a bit.
“But the disclosure, whether leaked or not, spoke of an intervention that the Ombudsman has undertaken that would seem to be either ignoring or disregarding the sub judice principle.”
The report addresses what has been termed by the Ombudsman as “wrongful” fraud charges against the NBS former Chief Executive Officer, Maurice Arjoon and two former senior managers, Kent Vincent and Kissoon Baldeo.
The fraud was said to have been committed in late 2006. The three men were fired in 2007 after an investigation, which concluded that there was dereliction of duty, negligence and/or serious misconduct. Following that, charges were laid against them.
The managers have since challenged the Society’s decision to terminate their employment, among other things, and the matter is currently before the courts.
Following this, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman’s office and the subsequent Ombudsman’s report on the matter was released several days ago.
According to the HPS, the Ombudsman ought to have advised the complainant that the matter is before the High Court and the sub judice principle prevents his office from engaging in a “comprehensive investigation” as was done by Moore.
“How did you get involved in a matter if it is sub judice?” Dr. Luncheon questioned.
Dr. Luncheon also cited another breach that could pose challenges for the Ombudsman, which is the fact that NBS is a private entity. “This is another concern that was raised,” he acknowledged.

ON VERGE OF LITIGATION
The HPS added that given the concerns raised by NBS over the report, litigation seems to be the next step.
“I think that the clients went to a law firm…I think we are on the verge of litigation,” he said.
Dr. Luncheon’s comments follow the dispatch of letters to both him and Moore by Attorney-At-Law Ashton Chase.
Chase, the Senior Counsel in the ongoing NBS fraud case wrote to both men to register concerns over the fact that the contents of the report have been publicised even before the report has been made public.
“Mr. Chase’s desire was to have the Office of the President aware of the concerns of his clients…it is clear in my mind that these are the concerns of his clients,” Dr. Luncheon said, adding that he does not expect Chase to stop at writing letters, given the magnitude of the issue.
Knowledge of the letters comes after the Ombudsman submitted the controversial 25-page document of a $69M fraud case at the NBS in 2006, to the Clerk of the National Assembly, last week.
The letter to the Ombudsman, seen by the Guyana Chronicle, states that NBS has been done a “grave injustice” in having the information of the report publicised before its public release.
“Our clients are concerned at being stigmatised by you and the comments made in a report by you, parts of which are published…our clients consider it most unfair that such comments should be made when they were never invited by you to give their versions of the matter.
“…moreover, as you are no doubt aware, a case is currently being heard in the court, the matter is sub judice and to be so subjected is a serious disadvantage to them (the clients), and a breach of the most basic judicial principles…a careful, if not sedulous, examination is expected of an Ombudsman, more so a retired judge.”
A copy of this letter was promised to be made available to Dr. Luncheon.
The second letter to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat says: “It seems that the publications arise from an initial report of the Ombudsman into our clients’ (NBS) business, a report that has not yet been made public. In the first instance, until made public, the report should not be published and appropriate steps of restraint ought to be taken by the authorities, including the Ombudsman.
“…moreover, certain statements and comments made by the Ombudsman are prejudicial to our clients, especially bearing in mind that they are part of proceedings before the High Court….the Ombudsman, having regard to his career, should know the damage inflicted.”

MOVING TO COURT
Last week, it was indicated that Labour Minister, Dr. Nanda Gopaul would move to the High Court this week to contest the grounds on which the Ombudsman compiled the 25-page report on the case of a $69M fraud case at the NBS.
Regarding the Labour Minister’s move to the High Court, after the Ombudsman’s report was made public, the Guyana Chronicle was reliably informed by a source close to the matter that the relevant court documents have already been prepared by the lawyers.
The source added that the grounds on which the matter is being contested include the fact that the NBS is a private entity; the Directors of NBS are elected from its membership; the Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), since that office is insulated by the Constitution; and that the Ombudsman failed to observe the sub judice rule.