Magistrate:No prejudice in re-laying charges against A&V boss

MAGISTRATE in the Siparia court ruled on Wednesday that re-laying the charges against A&V boss Nazim Hanif Baksh and his son-in-law which she dismissed in July was not an abuse of the court process.

As a result, the charges against Baksh and Billy Ramsundar, for assaulting Guardian photographer Kristian De Silva and malicious damage to his camera, can be read again.

Two years have passed since the police failed to prosecute them.

Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj ,SC, told senior magistrate Margaret Alert he would study her written ruling to determine whether to seek judicial review in the High Court.

Baksh and Ramsundar were charged afteran incident on September 15, 2017 at A&V, Nazim Avenue, San Francique, Penal. Media personnel went to investigate the disclosure of an audit report by the defunct state-owned Petrotrin, which implicated A&V in alleged fake oil payments.

For two years state attorneys failed to prosecute Baksh and Ramsundar despite Alert fixing trial dates. She dismissed the charges in July for want of prosecution.

Two weeks later, the charges were re-laid by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Maharaj, leading attorneys Prakash Ramadhar, Jagdeo Singh and Michael Rooplal, made extensive legal submissions that this was an abuse of process.

State attorney Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal contended that Baksh and Ramsundar suffered no prejudice, because they were not subjected to the rigours of a trial.

Delivering a written ruling yesterday as Baksh and Ramsundar sat before her, Alert said while she has the power to stop the prosecution’s case, it was not fully established what prejudice both accused had suffered by the information being re-laid.

“I do not hold it is an unfair manipulation of the process,” Alert said.

Alert asked Baksh and Ramsundar to stand so she could once again read the charges.

Maharaj rose and told the magistratehe would like to consider her ruling to determine whether to ask for judicial review in the High Court. To read the charges, he added, would be tantamount to a waiver of his clients’ constitutional rights.

Alert agreed and postponed the case to December 4 for mention.