Magistrate rejects no-case submission in Panday case; defence seeking stay of proceedings

Basdeo Panday and his daughter, Mickela, leave court Thursday

A Port of Spain magistrate on Thursday rejected a defence no-case submission in the Basdeo Panday case and ruled that the former prime minister Basdeo Panday has a case to answer on charges of failing to declare a London-based bank account to the Integrity Commission.

Panday's attorney's, led by British Queen's Counsel David Aaronberg, had made a no-case submission before Magistrate Marcia Murray stating the prosecution did not present any evidence to prove that Panday was the beneficiary of the account.

However Murray disagreed and stated that after listening to the evidence of the witnesses, she was of the view that the State was successful in establishing a prima facie case.

Aaronberg had argued that there was an abuse of process. He submitted that Panday's trial was tainted by bias including pre-trial publicity and political "mischief-making".

He stated that prior to Panday being charged, confidential information of the ongoing investigation had been leaked to the media from within the Integrity Commission. There were multiple articles in the daily newspapers outlining "very accurate" information, the lawyer stated.

"The information in the media only could have come from the Integrity Commission or someone in government. There was no investigation into the conduct of the Integrity Commission, and neither did the commission take sufficient steps to stop the leaks. One has to ask themselves why did these leaks occur," Aaronberg said.

He said in the run-up to the 2001 general election which resulted in an 18-18 tie then Opposition Leader Patrick Manning had made statements with regard to the account in order to cause Panday to lose political support.

"The background to this whole prosecution was mischief-making in the run-up to the 2001 general election," Aaronberg said.

"On September 14 (2001), Manning made certain claims with regard to the account and Panday denied those claims but those claims were made to gain political milage," said Aaronberg.

He also questioned why Panday was the sole person to be charged under the Integrity in Public Life Act when the commission had referred several other persons to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Under the Integrity in Public Life Act of 1987 under which Panday was charged, a person was not required to declare the assets of his/her spouse. 

The prosecution argued that Panday was fully aware he was required to declare the assets of the account but tried in 2002 to remove his name from the account held jointly with his wife, Oma, be removed from the account.

Panday's lawyers are seeking a stay of proceedings. They will continue with their application on Friday.