Mohamed Irfaan Ali
August 24 2019
Ali denied stay of ‘Pradoville 2’ fraud proceedings
The Court of Appeal has denied former Housing Minister and current People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) presidential hopeful Mohamed Irfaan Ali a stay of his prosecution on the 19 fraud charges levelled against him over the sale of land in the ‘Pradoville 2’ Housing Scheme.
At an in-chamber hearing before Appellate Judge Dawn Gregory yesterday morning, it was announced that Ali’s request for the stay would not be granted.
Justice Gregory explained that having looked at the merits of the appeal, it was clear that it had no arguable prospect of success. She noted that while the Appellate Court can review a charge by virtue of judicial review, that power ought to be exercised sparingly and in extreme circumstances.
With his summons for the stay now having been dismissed, Ali will be expected to attend the Georgetown Magistrates Courts on Monday, when the proceedings stemming from the charges are to continue before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan.
The charges, which detail offences alleged to have occurred in the period between September 2010 and March 2015, involve housing allocations to six Cabinet members—former president Bharrat Jagdeo, Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon and Ministers Priya Manickchand, Dr Jennifer Westford, Robert Persaud and Clement Rohee—along with other persons with connections to the then PPP/C government.
Following his arraignment last year, Ali filed a suit in the High Court against the Commissioner of Police, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Chief Magistrate, and Detective Corporal Muninlall Persaud, seeking a declaration that there was no statutory or common law duty to obtain a valuation prior to the sale of property. Ali wanted the court to also issue an order quashing the DPP’s decision to have instituted the charges in the first place, which he contended was irrational, unlawful, void and of no effect.
The former minister was asking for general, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages not less than $100,000; costs, and any further order or directions which the court deemed just and warranted in the circumstances.
His contention was that the conduct alleged in the charges, even if true, cannot in law meet the high standard of misconduct required to support the charges laid against him.
However, High Court Judge Franklyn Holder last month ruled that Ali does not have a constitutional right not to be charged, contrary to what he contended in a challenge. As a result, Ali appealed his loss. He has argued, among things, that not only do the charges not amount to an offence known to law but that even if proven they would not yield a conviction.
That substantive appeal is yet to be fixed for hearing.
Ali is being represented by attorney Anil Nandlall and Devindra Kissoon, while the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), which brought the charges against him, is represented by attorney Leslyn Noble. Meanwhile, the Attorney General is representing the DPP, Commissioner of Police and the magistrate.
