Challenge by Irfaan Ali to Pradoville 2 charges set for hearing
Former PPP/C Minister of Housing Mohamed Irfaan Ali has filed an action in the High Court challenging the validity of the 19 fraud charges levelled against him over sale of land in the ‘Pradoville 2’ Housing Scheme.
In the action which is scheduled to be called before Justice Franklyn Holder tomorrow, Ali is hoping to be granted an order staying the Magistrates Court from proceeding with the charges until the hearing and determination of the High Court challenge.
In his urgent fixed date application, Ali (the applicant) is seeking among other things, a declaration that the particulars of the charges do not constitute an offence known to law and contravene Section 144(4) of the Constitution.
The section provides, “No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence that is more severe in degree or nature than the most severe penalty that might have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed.”
In the latter part of last year, Ali was arraigned on 19 conspiracy to defraud charges stemming from the sale of land in the Pradoville 2, East Coast of Demerara Housing Scheme allegedly at far below value.
The charges, which detail offences alleged to have occurred between the period of September 2010 to March 2015, involve housing allocations to six Cabinet members—former president Bharrat Jagdeo, Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon and Ministers Priya Manickchand, Dr Jennifer Westford, Robert Persaud and Clement Rohee— along with other persons with connections to the then PPP/C government.
In his suit which is against the Commissioner of Police, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Chief Magistrate, and Detective Corporal Muninlall Persaud, Ali is seeking a declaration that there is no statutory or common law duty to obtain a valuation prior to the sale of property.
In his action which requests the grant of several orders also, the applicant wants the High Court to quash the DPP’s decision to institute the charges in the first place, contending that it was, among other things, irrational, unlawful, void and of no effect.
To this end, he wants the court to declare the charges as unconstitutional.
He wants the court to also declare that the particulars of the offence for the charges do not allege any underlying unlawful conduct and contravene Section 144(4) of the Constitution, and also that the decision to lay the charges constitute an abuse of process.
The former minister is asking for general, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages not less than $100,000; costs, and any further order or directions which the court deems just and warranted in the circumstances.
Among the orders being sought, Ali wants the court to quash the information sworn on oath by Munilall Persaud in the laying of the charges, on grounds that the charges are among other things, unlawful, void and of no effect.
Meanwhile, in his request for a stay, Ali is asking the High Court to
grant him an order of prohibition restraining the Chief Magistrate or any other magistrate from hearing or attempting to hear or determine or taking any further steps in respect of the charges laid against him; arguing, among other things, that it is also unlawful, void and of no effect.
He is hoping to be granted this order until his challenge in the High Court would have been fully heard and determined.
Ali argues through his attorney Devindra Kissoon that not only do the 19 charges levelled against him not amount to an offence known to law, but that even if proven, “are impossible to yield a conviction.”
He said that the conduct alleged in the charges, even if true, cannot in law meet the high standard of misconduct required to support the charges laid against him.
Noting that the charges allege that he committed a criminal act when he sold various lands without first obtaining a valuation, Ali contends that there is no duty or requirement by law nor is it the practice of the private sector, that the government or any state entity, authority, corporation or company, first obtain a valuation of property before sale.
He said that moreover, there are no identifiable standards or systems employed in Guyana for the valuation of land.
He said that the allegations of the sales being made “recklessly” or “without valuation” have no legal meaning and are incapable of interpretation or application in any criminal proceeding.
According to him, it is not alleged that he derived any personal profit from the aforesaid transactions or that he acted dishonestly. He contends that the decision to lay the charges against him almost nine years after the alleged acts occurred, though all information concerning the alleged acts was readily accessible, constitutes an abuse of process and is prejudicial to him.
Making a case for the urgent hearing of his application, Ali said that he stands to suffer irreparable harm, since there is a real threat that criminal proceedings will commence, with the possibility of conviction.
Citing his consideration as a presidential candidate for the PPP/C for the probable 2019/2020 general elections, Ali said that the state’s failure to swiftly prosecute him when it had all the necessary information at its disposal for the past nine years has caused, and is causing him grave and irreversible damage, and is thus prejudicing his eligibility.
Against this backdrop, the presidential hopeful wants the court to urgently hear his application ahead of probable elections in some months.
The matter before the chief magistrate is set to be called again on February 6th.