Chartered accountant allowed to testify for defence but not deemed ‘expert’ witness
Ex-GRDB accountant’s fraud trial…
December 20 2019
Peter Ramcharran
Minutes after presenting a court with photocopies of his qualifications yesterday, Leslie Veerasammy, Managing Partner of Nizam Ali & Company, was told by Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan that he would be allowed to testify as a defence witness but would not be deemed an expert.
Veerasammy appeared as a witness for the defence in the trial of Peter Ramcharran, who is accused of five counts of falsification of an account.
The charges allege that Ramcharran, while being the accountant of the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB), omitted to enter a total in excess of $414 million in the GRDB ledger.
During the continuation of the trial yesterday in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court One, attorney Sase Gunraj, who is representing Ramcharran, told the court that one of his witnesses,
Nigel Hinds, was unable to locate his qualification documents and could not attend court yesterday as he was otherwise engaged. He added that the other witness, Veerasammy, was present with his qualification documents and was prepared to testify.
Two photocopied documents—a practicing certificate and another showing that he has Fellowship (or senior membership) in the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)—were subsequently handed over to the Prosecutor Patrice Henry, who immediately stated that the documents were not qualifications because the ACCA document only proved that Veerasammy was a member of the ACCA.
Veerasammy said that the original documents are in a safety deposit box in a bank and that he was unable to retrieve it because he was busy.
Meanwhile, Gunraj contended that the document showed that Veerasammy has been a member of the ACCA for six years, which proved that he is qualified.
Chief Magistrate McLennan interjected and said that she understood his argument but it was the court’s opinion that no certificate was presented to satisfy it that Veerasammy is a chartered accountant.
“There must be a foundation to show the basis on which you received a certificate to practice. I am not satisfied that he is a chartered accountant based on the documents that he presented to the court. I don’t know if this (the documents) is fake or acquired by false documents,” she stated.
Gunraj started arguing but the Chief Magistrate once again interjected, saying that the court gave Veerasammy an opportunity to bring his qualification documents and he did but “the court has decided that he is not competent to give evidence in the matter as an expert.” She then said that Veerasammy could proceed with his testimony but it would not be deemed “expert testimony.”
Veerasammy proceeded with his testimony and noted his professional interaction with the GRDB as he is the Managing Partner of the firm, Nizam Ali & Company, which was contracted by the GRDB to carry out statutory audits for years 2010 to 2015. He said that the firm conducted those audits but has not conducted audits for the GRDB since 2015 and he is aware that they contracted TSD LAL &Co to conduct two subsequent audits since 2015. Gunraj subsequently asked that the audit reports from 2011 to 2015 be tendered as exhibits but Henry objected to his request, while noting among other things that the reports were not relevant to the charges engaging the attention of the trial, which is dealing specifically with the year 2015.
Meanwhile Gunraj argued that there are a number of charges before the court relying on the same statements that have been presented to the court to support the current charges. He then renewed his request for all the financial statements from the audit report to be tendered into evidence.
However, the prosecutor then said the law clearly states that a Corporate Secretary should be the one to testify on behalf of the company, so if the reports are to be tendered as evidence the Corporate Secretary has to go to court and testify.
The reports were then handed over to the Chief Magistrate who asked if the financial statement was the opinion of Veerasammy or the auditor. Veerasammy stated that it was the audit office of Guyana’s opinion and the other was the opinion of the company and the chartered accountant.
Afterward, the Chief Magistrate said that she considered the evidence led by Veerasammy and his appointment and role satisfied the court that he was the maker of the 2015 document, hence that document would be tendered into evidence. She further ruled that the remaining documents were not relevant to the charge and as a result they will not be admitted. She adjourned the matter until next Monday, when the trial is expected to continue.
