…High Court to rule next week on validity of charges filed against Singh, Brassington
High Court Judge, Franklin Holder has set May 21 as the date when he will rule on the challenge being pursued by former finance minister under the People’s Progressive Civic (PPP/C) government, Dr Ashni Singh and former National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) CEO, Winston Brassington that the ‘misconduct in public office’ charges against them are illegal.
On April 12, 2018, SOCU instituted legal proceedings against Singh and Brassington for what it says is “misconduct in public office: contrary to common law” as it pertains to the sale of three plots of State land.
However, former Attorney General under the PPP/C Administration, Anil Nandlall is challenging these matters for what the defence contends are frivolous charges.
Nandlall filed the two High Court actions seeking to have an interim stay of proceedings in the Magistrates’ Courts and to have the charges against Singh and Brassington quashed.
On May 2 2018, Justice Franklyn Holder heard the challenge for an interim stay of proceedings in the Magistrates’ Courts.
Having heard both sides, the Judge then gave SOCU’s lawyers one week to show why he should not grant Nandlall’s application.
Singh and Brassington’s legal team included Senior Counsel Stanley Moore, Sase Gunraj, Ronald Burch-Smith and Mark Waldron.
Following the in-chambers hearing, Nandlall, along with his legal team, told reporters that the hearing for the application for the interim order has commenced before Justice Holder, adding that time was of the essence.
“We are challenging the legality and validity of the charges and that will take some time to determine; in the meantime, we want an interim order staying the hands of the Magistrate from going forward, so the hearing for that has commenced [but] the other side wants leave to file and answer,” he observed.
Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran is of the view that the charges may be unconstitutional on the basis that Singh and Brassington were not “public officers” in accordance with the Constitution.
Various lawyers have also recently pointed out that using the definitions of “public officer”, “public office” and “public service” as defined in Article 232 of the Guyana Constitution would exclude both Singh and Brassington, from the charges of “Misconduct in Public Office: Contrary to the Common Law.”
It was posited that this was “an open-and-shut case”, as neither Singh nor Brassington are “public officers” and as such, the law under which they are charged (based on both the Constitution and legal precedents all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) cannot be applied to them.
Singh and Brassington have maintained that they have always acted within the law and with the full backing of the Cabinet and the actions being taken by the SOCU and SARA are meant to target officials of the past administration with the aim of appeasing APNU/AFC supporters.
After the charges were filed, Nandlall on behalf of PPP/C Members of Parliament (MPs) took to the court to have Public Health Minister Volda Lawrence and former Public Health Minister, Dr George Norton charged with the same offence.
In addition, Government Ministers David Patterson, Winston Jordan and Dr Rupert Roopnaraine were also charged.
However, all of those charges were discontinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a move which Nandlall contends is unfair as he continues to oppose the decision.
