Murdered Maritime General chairman hailed as 'larger than life'

Murdered insurance executive John Henry Smith has been remembered by his employer as an actor, playwright, musician, singer and masman.

But Smith shot into the national spotlight for more ignominious reasons more than 17 years ago when he, along with UNC financiers, politicians and business people were hauled to court on a series of criminal charges arising out of what is now the longest-ever corruption case in this country's history.

He died while out on million-dollar bail and before he got the opportunity to present his own case in his defence for crimes accusing him and others of stealing nearly $1 billion from the maligned $1.6 billion Piarco Airport project between 1995 and 2006.

Smith, 74, the chairman of Maritime General and Fidelity Finance, one of the companies also accused of fraud in the Piarco case, was found dead by police at his home in Catalina Courts, Saddle Road, Maraval on Friday.

A statement from the Police Service said a 41-year-old woman is assisting homicide officers in their investigations in what seems to be a domestic-related incident.

In a separate statement issued by the Maritime Financial Group hours after Smith's death, the company said it was "devastated" by the news of its chairman's death.

"John was a true patriarch and stalwart of the Maritime family. He served for almost 50 years as accountant, financial controller, head of marketing, chief executive and chairman. Because of John, we at Maritime are who we are today. He was a fanatic for service, believer in people, stickler for time; but moreover someone who was larger than life. Beyond business, John was an actor, playwright, musician, singer and 'masman."

The company quoted Smith's mantra "there is only one purpose to life and that is to enjoy life and living. It is not money, it is not power. It is simply to have a good time" and said he lived by that philosophy.

Many of Smith's co-accused, including businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh, Steve Ferguson, Amrith Maharaj, former government ministers Russell Huggins, Brian Kuei Tung, Sadiq Baksh, and former chairmen of the Airports Authority Ameer Edoo and Tyrone Gopee, among others, have aged considerably since they were charged between 2004 and 2005 and appear weathered by the numerous legal challenges seeking to have the charges dismissed.

Smith is the second accused to have died before going to trial. Former chairman of the National Insurance Property Development Company Edward Bayley died in 2006 after a prolonged illness.

The Piarco corruption case is mired in politics and has been used on the political platform by the ruling PNM as one of the weapons which damaged the credibility of the Basdeo Panday administration which was voted into office for the first time in 1995.

It has also been one of the most expensive, apart from the CL Financial corruption probe, still ongoing, as numerous preliminary legal issues have been argued all the way to the Privy Council in London, most without success.

In comparison, some of the alleged co-conspirators such as Raul Gutierrez, and Eduardo Hillman have long completed their sentences imposed by a federal court in Miami, Florida. Galbaransingh, the owner of Northern Construction Ltd, and Ferguson, the former chairman of the Maritime Group, successfully challenged extradition orders to the US in 2011 on the basis that the authorisation by then attorney general Anand Ramlogan was "unjust and oppressive."

In May 2018, Ejenny Espinet, the magistrate presiding over one of the related enquiries involving some of the accused, retired before she gave a final ruling on the case, which was on the brink of being completed.

The effect was two-fold as it meant that the matter would have to be restarted or that the Director of Public Prosecutions would exercise his power under section 23(8) of the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Inquiry) Act and file an indictment against them although the magisterial proceedings had not yet come to an end.

Some of the accused challenged the DPP's decision to use the latter procedure and accused him of attempting to circumvent the committal process by preferring an indictment.

In November 2019, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled in favour of the accused and ordered that the DPP could not lawfully exercise his power to prefer an indictment, because the preliminary inquiry in the Piarco 2 proceedings had started before September 15, 2005, and was expressly barred by Section 23 (h) of the act.

Rampersad also held that the accused, “can only be lawfully committed to trial for the offences first inquired into at the PI, after the institution and conduct of a fresh preliminary enquiry before a new magistrate.”

Lawyers involved in the case since its inception told Sunday Newsday that another attempt to indict the accused to stand trial in the High Court has once again been challenged by the accused and preliminary legal submissions have already been filed, with another deadline to submit further arguments in writing next month.

About the Piarco Airport case

The accused include former government ministers, key financiers of the United National Congress, and several other business people who are accused of conspiring to form ghost companies which collected millions of dollars from the Airports Authority for work not done during the construction of the new Piarco Airport Terminal, and the money gained was then allegedly split among themselves.

The charges were the culmination of a two-and-a-half year investigation, led by the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau, assisted by a team of forensic accountants, led by Robert Lindquist. They were able to allegedly trace the movement of millions of dollars used to buy properties in Florida.

The accused were jointly charged with conspiring between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2001, to obtain contracts and payments of a total face value of up to $1.6 billion from the Piarco project.

The charges accuse them of corruptly receiving unlawful payments of up to $144,048,858 with intent to defraud the Airports Authority, Nipdec, the Government and the public, by falsely pretending that the process involved in obtaining the contracts and payments was open, honest and competitive although the fraud was facilitated by the accused themselves, who then held strategic positions overseeing the project.