Absence of document a setback for prosecution in Petrojam trial

THE fraud trial of former Petrojam Chairman Dr Percival Bahado Singh encountered a setback on Tuesday in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court as prosecutors were not in possession of the joint venture agreement which governed aspects of how both Jamaica and Venezuela operated the State-owned oil refinery.

Singh and former Petrojam General Manager Floyd Grindley are accused of producing fraudulent claims, amounting to US$73,620, that were submitted to the refinery from December 2016 to May 2018.

Allegations are that Singh submitted claims for foreign travel, which he did not attend, while Grindley is accused of aiding and abetting in the matter. Both were initially slapped with eight counts of aiding and abetting and obtaining money by false pretence. Singh was charged with 12 offences relating to the US$73,620 that he allegedly took from the company. Both were slapped with additional charges, which included fraudulent conversion, aiding and abetting fraudulent conversion, conspiracy to defraud, and a count of obtaining money by false pretence.

On the second day of trial on Tuesday, the court ruled that in order for questions to be posed to the current witness, Winston Watson, the current general manager of Petrojam, about the joint venture agreement, the document would first have to be obtained by the prosecution and admitted into evidence. The judge indicated that a subpoena would be issued to the attorney representing Petrojam, who would have access to the document.

Attorney Bert Samuels, who is representing Singh, questioned whether the travel arrangements for the former Venezuelan chairman of Petrojam fell under the approval of the Cabinet secretary. He noted that the joint agreement dictated that the chairman, be it Jamaican or Venezuelan, should be entitled to similar privileges. However, the prosecution objected to any further question to Watson on the topic without the document being present.

According to the prosecution, to continue with questions on the document would be a disadvantage.

Before yielding, Samuels said the prosecution has a duty to put all relevant evidence before the court as it should not be deprived of any material to decide whether Singh acted in accordance with the rules of Petrojam or not.

“I cannot take the blame for inadequacies. It ought to be here. He [Watson] said in respect to this case, that the joint venture agreement governs Petrojam in part. It is up to the cross-examiner now, in all fairness, to pursue that line. It can’t be because the prosecution has decided to be selective in the material it brings here, that I am constrained and restrained in an area that assists my defence.

“I need to cross-examine him about a matter that governs the chairmanship and the board of Petrojam, and I am going to insist that I am allowed to cross-examine about a document that governs Petrojam. I am going to leave the joint venture and go to other areas,” Samuels said before moving on to other questions he had for Watson.

He asked Watson whether he had known that Singh resided in the United States of America for the entire period of his chairmanship from 2016 to 2018. Watson responded that he had only heard about it subsequent to Singh’s appointment as chairman.

Samuels asked him if he had requested that Singh repay money to Petrojam for celebrations observing the 35th anniversary of the company, as well as money for a surprise birthday party for Singh.

He also asked Watson whether he appreciated that Singh “knew nothing about a surprise party”.

Watson responded that he didn’t know anything about the surprise party.

He also said an investigation was done, but he was not a part of the investigation.