No response to request to postpone EMBD ruling till after election

THERE has been no response from the Judiciary or Justice James Aboud who has been asked to “reconsider” the date he has fixed to give his ruling on various applications before him in four matters involving contractors, a former government minister and the Estate Management Business Development (EMBD) Company.

On Friday, attorneys representing the five contractors asked the judge to reconsider postponing his ruling, “having regard to the wide publicity given concerning the merits and weaknesses” of the claims, until after the August 10 general election.

Questions sent to the Judiciary for comment from the judge were not answered up to late on Monday.

Parties in the matter have also said they have received no response, nor has the judge indicated his intention to postpone his decision from August 6.

Aboud is presiding over the EMBD’s lawsuit against former housing minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, as well as a consolidated case in which three companies have sued the state-owned EMBD over unpaid contracts for the upgrade and rehabilitation of certain Caroni access roads and two contracts for rehabilitation works.

In an EMBD countersuit, the state entity is seeking repayment of sums paid to the contractors, which were identified as TN Ramnauth and Co; Kallco Ltd; Mootilal Ramhit and Sons; and Fides Ltd.

The EMBD’s claim against Moonilal also includes former EMBD chief executive Gary Parmassar; former divisional manager at EMBD Madhoo Balroop; Andrew Walker; and companies Fides Ltd; Namalco Construction; and LCB Contractors.

Moonilal and the others were accused of engaging in an elaborate scheme of bid-rigging, bribery and collusion which led to hundreds of millions of dollars being disbursed to five contractors just before the 2015 general election.

In the letter to Aboud, attorney Karina Singh, in asking for the postponement, pointed out that the political arm of the Government has made “strong and inflammatory public statements about the strength of the case of the EMBD."

She said the Opposition has also made strong and inflammatory public statements about the weakness of the EMBD’s case.

Singh said the request was because the delivery of the judgment, before the election date, could mean “whichever side succeeds in the applications before the court is likely to bring the administration of justice into political controversy.”

She pointed to a press conference by the executive when EMBD filed its counterclaim, in which the matters were discussed publicly and there was emphasis on their clients being called “the cartel.”

Singh, who is led by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Jagdeo Singh and Kiel Taklalsingh, for some of the companies, said there had been several newspaper publications, news broadcasts and comments on social media on the merits and weakness of the claims and counterclaims.

She even pointed to the opinions by the Police Commissioner and the head of the police service’s legal unit, Christian Chandler, on the strength of evidence against her clients.

Singh provided a table showing the chronology of some of the publications, dating back to July.

“It is in that factual context having regard to the intense and inflammatory views expressed by the politicians both on behalf of the governing party and the politicians on behalf of the Opposition party on the strength and/or weakness of the claims and/or counterclaims that the court may wish to consider that the interest of justice demands that the judgment be postponed to a date after the general election,” she wrote.