– for disclosure of GRDB audit report

CHIEF Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, SC, on Thursday dismissed applications made by several PPP officials to declare that the failure of the prosecution to disclose a copy of the forensic audit report on the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB), which formed the basis for investigations carried out by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), was in violation of their Constitutional rights.

The applicants were: Badrie Persaud, Prema Ramanah-Roopnarine, Jagnarine Singh, and Nigel Dharmalall. The forensic audit report was prepared by Nigel Hinds, Forensic Auditor, and according to the quartet, the non-disclosure of same constituted a violation of Article 144 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, and more particularly, their right to be afforded facilities for the preparation of their defence and other protections of the law secured under, and guaranteed by, the said Article 144.

In their Fixed Date applications, Persaud, Ramanah-Roopnarine, Singh and Dharamlall also called for an order for a permanent stay of proceedings, quashing, vacating or setting aside the charges of Fraudulent Omission, contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 8:01 for which the Applicants were charged.

The applications of the quartet were identical, and all called for the same reliefs. They contended that they were charged on May 19, 2017 with five counts of Fraudulent Omission, and placed on $500,000 bail by Chief Magistrate Ann Mc Lennan. The matter was later transferred to Magistrate Leron Daly, where the Administration of Justice Act was applied, and the parties opted to pursue summary trials and pleaded not guilty.
The quartet, along with Dharamkumar Seeraj and Ricky Ramraj, all denied that in 2011, they omitted to enter some $52M in the GRDB ledger. They also denied that they omitted to enter a sum of $77.3M into the said ledger. Other charges read that between the years 2014 and 2015, the sums of $130M, $9.7M and $145M were respectively omitted from the GRDB register. They pleaded not guilty to these charges as well.

The applicants contended that they were later served with some 18 statements by the prosecution, and despite each of the prosecution’s witnesses commencing their testimony by referring to the pendency of a Forensic Audit Report on the GRDB by Nigel Hinds, they were never served with any, despite repeated requests and orders on the SOCU prosecutors to produce same.

The Applicants also alleged that the non-disclosure of the forensic audit report constituted a violation of their right to a fair trial, and the right to be afforded all fair and reasonable facilities for the preparation of their defence. They further contended that the Forensic Audit report is integral to the prosecution’s case, and therefore equally integral to the preparation of their defence and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
However, in response, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, represented by Principal Legal Adviser, Oneka Archer-Caulder and State Counsel Collene Liverpool, countered that the charges laid against the Applicants were not made pursuant to the Forensic Audit report, but rather only caused an investigation to be launched; and it was upon the information unearthed during that investigation that the Applicants were charged.

As such, the Attorney-General’s Chambers argued that the forensic audit report was not an integral part of the prosecution’s case, and, accordingly, the Applicants were not prejudiced in the preparation of their defence. Further, the State’s attorneys argued that the Applicants were served with 18 statements and exhibits, which formed the bases of the prosecution’s case, and therefore anything outside of those statements would be irrelevant to assist the Applicant’s in the preparation of their defence.

As a result of the evidence put forward by the state, the Chief Justice (ag) considered the claims by the applicants to be misconceived.

Meanwhile, in the case of Badrie Persaud, the court ruled that since the charge against him had not yet commenced in the Magistrate’s court, his applications for disclosure and stay were premature. All applications were dismissed. Singh and Dharmalall were represented by Attorney Glenn Hanoman, while Persaud and Ramanah-Roopnarine were represented by Attorney Sase Gunraj.