Solicitor General emphasises absence...

Brassington former head of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) are challenging the charges laid against them by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

In their application challenging the validity of the charges, the men are seeking to have the DPP’s decision to institute the charges against them reviewed and ultimately quashed.

In her submissions before acting Chief Justice Roxane George SC, Kyte-Thomas advanced that the sale executed by the two had not been done with prudence or with an appreciation for market value.

She said that in some instances no valuation had been acquired before the sale and in other, while valuations were acquired, the two nonetheless went ahead and sold the lands far below market value.

To this end she argued vehemently on behalf of the state that Singh and Brassington as public officials ought to have been prudent in their handling of the affairs of the state as they were holding on trust.

Not being their private property, she said they therefore had a duty to ensure that their conduct was not reckless nor was there a breach of the public’s trust while noting that they could not sell at prices they wanted.

She said “the offence is in serious departure from proper standards. A departure not merely negligent but which amounts to an affront to the standards of the public office held.”

She is contending that they were reckless in their conduct which amounted to a breach of the public’s trust.

The SG said that these are all matters of fact which ought to be determined by a magistrate—sitting as the tribunal of fact and are not issues to be decided by the High Court. For this reason she said the charges should be allowed to stand and the matter be allowed to continue before the Magistrates Court.

Kyte-Thomas said the applicants’ argument of the sufficiency and/or insufficiency of evidence as a basis for the DPP instituting charges against them has no place before the High Court but rather the lower court.

The SG said that such facts have to be presented to, and determined by a magistrate while adding that it is not for the DPP to prove those issues before the High Court which does not have those particular facts.

It was against this backdrop she said she did not believe the applicants had produced any evidence to substantiate that the DPP acted irrationally or in bad faith, abused the process of the court or that her discretion should be fettered.

When she addressed the court a week ago, KyteThomas had argued that while the DPP’s actions can be reviewed, courts are generally reluctant to interfere and would sparingly do so, while noting the high bar which must be crossed by applicants.

The case will continue at 3 this afternoon when attorney Anil Nandlall who is representing the men, is scheduled to respond to the state’s arguments.