Sharma charged again for obstruction of justice

Jul 02, 2010 News

---

The Chandra Narine Sharma debacle took a further twist when the police instituted another obstruction of justice charge yesterday against the embattled television station owner.
Sharma along with five of his associates, including his son-in-law Ravi Mangar, were all charged with obstruction of justice and were admitted to $100,000 bail on April 22, last.
Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson yesterday instructed Sharma, that he was not required to plead to the second charge.
It is alleged that between June 17 and June 24, 2010, Sharma willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice when he made contact with Natasha and Theresa Dhanraj, who are two witnesses in a criminal trial at which Sharma is a defendant. This second charge further alleges that Sharma tried to have the women recant their testimonies.
Attorneys at law Nigel Hughes and Vic Puran represented Sharma yesterday.
Hughes in his address to court said that the first time Sharma was charged with the offence the defence never offered any comment on the matter or the motivation of the charge.
The lawyer said that he is now convinced that the charges are politically motivated.
He further told the court that even before Sharma was charged with carnal knowledge of a young girl the media houses were well aware of the impending charge.
Hughes said that now that the trial has commenced and he was in the process of cross examining the young girl, all of the statements which were given to the police have now made their way to the internet.
The lawyer explained that statements which were on the internet published the young girl’s name, address and other pertinent evidence in the case in contravention of the recently passed Sexual Offences legislation.
Hughes emphasized that what makes the entire situation sickening is that the headline reads “Statements leaked from the Guyana Police Force”.
He said that acts which were committed by the guilty persons are totally against the law. Hughes stressed that the state is obligated to protect persons who give statements in criminal matters.
The lawyer further stated that the website in which the statements were published on is owned by a well known PPP/C member.
At this point Special Prosecutor, Sanjeev Datadin, objected and stated that it wasn’t the proper forum to address the ownership of a website.
Hughes noted that it was mind boggling to know that every potential victim has to fear the danger that his or her statements may be made public.
He said that the statements which were published on the website are very specific.
Moreover, the lawyer said, Sharma was never accused of stealing the statements, nor did he at anytime try to obtain the statements.
The lawyer opined that the statements were either intentionally leaked or it was gross police negligence that caused them to be publicly published.
“One has to ask….what is the reason and purpose behind this and also why the police haven’t moved to arrest the persons who are responsible?”
Hughes added that the two persons who are mentioned in the charge were in protective custody.
He said that he was not sure if they escaped or if they left willingly and were interviewed by a popular television personality.
The lawyer added that neither of the two persons was forced into doing the interview. He said that certain things emanating from the interview have suggested that they were made to give evidence against Sharma.
“Now that the persons are back in protective custody….Sharma is now charged with obstruction of justice.”
Hughes continued to tell the court that the two women in question had given statements even before he was charged, stating that Sharma never committed an offence.
He said that the charges against his client are perceived and motivated by considerations other than legal. Special Prosecutor Datadin sought to clarify that the two persons mentioned in the charge were never arrested by the police or were at anytime restrained against their will. At this point the magistrate questioned the prosecutor as to the whereabouts of the two females and whether they were present in court. The court’s orderly called out their names three times and no one answered.
Hughes then interjected and explained that both women were taken to the Eve Leary Headquarters on April 16, by attorney at law Tanya Warren. He said that after the lawyer entered the station, the police quickly took the women into a room and refused to grant Ms Warren access to her clients.
Hughes said that the two women were seen a fortnight later.
Datadin objected and said that the two women were taken by Hughes and they gave a statement which appeared to be “very difficult”.
Attorney at law Vic Puran, who briefly addressed the court, said that the charges against his client were very serious.
He said that the charges are so serious that they warrant a bail refusal. However the Sharma case is different, he said. He opined that the case is taking on a proportion outside of the legal realm.
Puran urged the magistrate not to become ensnarled in the process. He also told the court that specific allegations have now been made against himself and Hughes.
He said that it was reported in certain quarters, that he forced the women to give contradicting statements.
Puran said that it was also reported that after he forced the women to give certain statements he handed them over to a popular political activist.
According to Puran, it is also rumored that he collected a substantial amount of money to do this.
Prosecutor Datadin said that he was opposing bail because of the fact that Sharma was charged with a similar offence a mere two months ago.
He said that bail should be refused since there is the likelihood of the accused committing the same offence. He said that given what has happened it was no longer a possibility but reality.
Hughes interjected and said that charges instituted against his client are out of pure malice.
Magistrate Robertson granted the accused $150,000 bail and ordered him to return on September 3.

---

---