THE age-old Piarco Airport corruption case involving former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and others may have one more round in count.
This time the former accused may bring a legal case of malicious prosecution.
Attorneys for Panday and the other high-profile accused are pondering whether to file such a matter against the State, after Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard threw out the substantive case.
The several attorneys for the defence are due to huddle and decide whether to proceed with the counter case.
The attorneys include British King’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald had earlier appealed to Gaspard to discontinue the long-drawn-out matter, claiming, among other things, that it was politically inspired.
In a letter to the DPP three months ago, Fitzgerald said the prosecutions took place when the People’s National Movement “was seeking to ensure its success in the next general election.”
He stated that discontinuance of the case was “necessary to protect the moral integrity of the criminal justice system based on serious allegations of political interference” in the investigations that led to the charges.
He said that former Prime Minister Patrick Manning and two ex-attorneys general had made public comments imputing guilt by the accused.
Fitzgerald said that “these attacks on the presumption of innocence were particularly damaging” because “the investigation and advancement of these prosecutions were driven by the attorney general and … subject to his oversight.”
The probe was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau, which reported to the office of Attorney General.
He claimed that a certain attorney general had “allegedly improper interactions” with then-Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicholls.
The Privy Council had considered that matter when it ordered that charges against some of the accused be quashed.
Fitzgerald said there was “PNM Government’s determination to pursue a vendetta against its political enemies by any means possible.”
The king’s counsel claimed that his clients’ right to a fair trial without undue delay was breached by the case pending for about two decades.
