DPP debunks misleading comments reportedly made by Hughes
DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, yesterday, debunked comments made by Chairman of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Nigel Hughes, in an article which was published in yesterday’s edition of the Stabroek News under the headline: ‘Hughes accuses DPP of letting mass murderer to go free – as part of deal for Lusignan trial testimony’.
DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack
Ali-Hack pointed out that Hughes’comments were made without any attempt to obtain her position on the matter.
She slammed the accusation that her office is looking at a plea-bargain deal with a man, who admitted to participating in the Lusignan, Bartica and Lindo Creek massacres.
According to Mrs Ali-Hack, at no time did the DPP make any plea bargain deal with the witness Dwane Williams, who was the witness named in the article.
The article also said, “Perhaps the people of Lusignan may wish to inquire of the Attorney General (Anil Nandlall) and the DPP (Shalimar Ali-Hack), why the State, which is responsible for protecting and serving them, would let a self-confessed murderer of 33 citizens go free without a single charge. No other person in the history of this country has enjoyed such a pardon.”
Ali-Hack maintained that the witness Dwane Williams testified for the State, as is very evident from the article, which itself made contradictory statements.
The DPP noted that the article itself said, “A mere week before the commencement of the Lusignan trial Mr. Williams had the charges of murder against him mysteriously dropped by the State and he was released.”
She said, “This in itself states that Dwane Williams was charged which contradicted other aspects of the article which stated that Dwane Williams was allowed go free without a single charge.
“Based on the facts from the investigations, Dwane Williams was an accomplice. It is an old common law practice to allow an accomplice to an offence to testify for the prosecution. It has always been done in the criminal law practice, and continues to be done. It is a lawful practice with which all criminal law practitioners are quite familiar.”
The embattled AFC Chairman, himself, is facing legal troubles, following the court action moved by Mayfield French, the owner of popular city school Mae’s.
French, on January 17, 2014, sued Nigel Hughes, Hand-in-Hand Mutual Life Insurance Company and the Registrar of the Supreme Court in respect of a property located at Lot 29 Subryanville, Kitty, Georgetown, upon which part of the school has been built.
In the court papers which were seen by this newspaper, French is contending that since February 24th 2006, she purchased the said property from Nigel Hughes for the sum of $20,000,000. She paid $8,000,000 as a deposit and went in possession; transport was supposed to be passed within 8 months and a mortgage on the said property was supposed to be paid off before the passing of the said transport.
In the meanwhile, this property was built up by French with buildings constructed on it as part of the school building complex.
According to French, she spent nearly $400 million on the said property. The portion which was bought from Hughes houses classrooms of Mae’s Secondary School, the canteen and the auditorium offices, washroom and other administrative and learning spaces. However, Hughes never passed transport to her.
Before the sale to French, Hughes had mortgaged the very property to Hand-in-Hand Mutual Life Insurance Company. French claimed that it was only in December, 2013 that she first learnt that Hughes never paid off a loan, for which this said property was mortgaged as collateral and that Hand-in-Hand Mutual Life Insurance obtained foreclosure proceedings against the property and Hughes since 20th March, 2012. Hughes’s indebtedness to the company stands at over $26 million. The property was levied upon in December, 2013, by the Marshal of the Supreme Court and purportedly sold at an auction.
According to French, Hughes never disclosed that he did not pay off the loan; that he was sued as a result, and that a foreclosure order was obtained against the property. French claimed as a result she now faces ruin.
