GRDB Fraud case... Magistrate orders Prosecution to disclose forensic audit report

GRDB Fraud case… Magistrate orders Prosecution to disclose forensic audit report

Oct 26, 2018 News

Months after the Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU), handed over the forensic report which is the subject of a matter involving four ex-Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) members, Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall is claiming that the Prosecution handed over a forensic audit report which was “doctored”, ultimately to benefit their case.
Last June, Justice Navindra Singh ordered SOCU, an arm of the Guyana Police Force, to hand over the forensic report which was prepared by Accountant Nigel Hinds.
The said document was handed over to ex GRDB head, Madanlall Ramraj and his attorney.
Ramraj, a former Deputy General of GRDB and People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) member; former GRDB Manager Jagnarine Singh; former Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Prema Roopnarine; and PPP/C MP Nigel Dharamlall, were arraigned on 34 fraud-related charges.
The charges against the accused alleged that they failed to record entries for funds amounting to over $250 million in the agency’s general ledger.
Yesterday when the matter was called in Senior Magistrate Leron Daly’s Courtroom, the Magistrate told the court that she had considered the arguments of the defence for the Prosecution to hand over the documents.
She added that the court will peruse the forensic report and see what and how much the Prosecution should disclose to the defence.
She further noted that the information that is contained in the forensic report is in relation to other investigations, and she would not like those investigations to be compromised in any way.
Nandlall in addressing the court said that Justice Singh, having gone through the forensic audit report, saw some identical charges for Ramraj in relation to the matter; hence he was granted a stay of proceeding by the High Court.
Nandlall further argued that the High Court found that the forensic report presented by the Prosecution was not the same that the charges stemmed from.
He added that Justice Singh rejected the report because it is not the same report that was submitted by Nigel Hinds, thus he urged the Magistrate to do the same.
Nandlall further stated that the forensic report handed over by Nigel Hinds was comprehensive, unaltered and uninterfered with by any external force. He added that the statements in the forensic report are favourable to his client’s case, but have been taken out by the Prosecution, which is unfair and dangerous to his clients.
“How can they do that when they have full duty to disclose all the documents to which the charges are laid?” Nandlall stressed.
Attorney-at-law Glen Hanoman, who is also representing the defendants, told the court that from his investigation, he discovered that the names of other persons who were implicated by the audit report and who investigators have decided not to charge, were removed from the audit report.
This, he said, may have been because of political reasons. He asked the Magistrate to be very careful in what she deems relevant to the case.
As a result, Magistrate Daly instructed Special Organized Crime Unit Prosecutor, Lawrence Harris, to hand over the audit report by Nigel Hinds to the court at the next hearing slated for November 7.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News