Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack has said there was strong and compelling evidence for charges to be laid in 2007 against three managers of the New Building Society (NBS) over a $69 million fraud at the institution.

In a statement on Friday, the DPP was responding to an article in Thursday’s Stabroek News on a recent report by the Ombudsman on the sacking and ensuing charges against then NBS Chief Executive Officer Maurice Arjoon and two managers, Kent Vincent and Kissoon Baldeo. In the report, Moore said the trio had suffered a grave injustice and he called into question the DPP’s decision to recommend criminal charges against the men.

The DPP, the statement said, reviewed all statements in the police file and found that there was “strong and compelling evidence to institute the charges against the employees as advised.”

The statement added that the DPP cannot be responsible for the fact that the victim (NBS accountholder) did not attend court to testify against these persons.

What the DPP did, the statement said, was to give legal advice based on the evidence in the police file and the laws of Guyana.

Shalimar Ali-Hack

“No person can challenge this act of the DPP except a court of law and only where there is evidence that the DPP acted contrary to the Constitu-tion or statute. Indeed, such a challenge was done and the High Court of Guyana via Justice Dawn Gregory did not find that the DPP acted contrary to the Constitution or statute by advising the police to institute the charges, but rather acted in accordance with the law.”

Ali-Hack also took umbrage at a statement made by Arjoon in his complaint to Moore that “the President quickly confirmed the DPP in her previously acting position”.

“I wish to expressly and emphatically state that I was both appointed to act and subsequently confirmed as DPP by the Judicial Service Commis-sion, not the president. In fact, I am the first DPP in Guyana to have been appointed as DPP by the Judicial Service Commis-sion pursuant to the 2001 amendment to the Constitution,” she stated.

She also raised questions about the Ombuds-man’s jurisdiction in this matter.

She said that while the Ombudsman’s functions are expressly stated in Article 192 and 193 of the Constitution, Article 193 specifically states the excluded matters of the Ombudsman.

She said a reading of these articles does give rise to question how this criminal matter came to be ‘entertained’ by the Ombudsman. Among the excluded matter in Article 193 is “the commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings in any court.”

Further, the DPP argued that based on the newspapers’ writings, the Ombudsman used an incomplete file to make his report, yet, “uncannily, he was able to pronounce that the persons have suffered grave injustice when they were charged. Surely it must be a small wonder in these twilight days.”

Following an assessment of the police file in the case, Moore had written to DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack on August 29 2014 asking whether in light of information given by another suspect, if a review of the earlier conclusion that Arjoon and the others had perpetrated fraud wasn’t warranted. Moore said there was no response to this letter.