Nandlall raises contention over State’s role in sale of Pradoville lands

Nov 09, 2018 News

Attorney-at-law Anil Nandlall has raised contentions over the role of the State in the sale of Pradoville lands.
The lawyer also argued over the basis on which criminal charges were brought against former Minister of Finance Ashni Singh and former Head of National Industrial Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), Winston Brassington for the sale of prime state lands.
Nandlall stressed that by legal definition the men conducted no criminal deed, but were only acting in the execution of their duties. He noted that both Singh and Brassington had acted on behalf of a government.
“It was a cabinet decision; a policy of the government under which these two officers operated and which the lands were sold,” Nandlall said yesterday as he continued his legal submissions before Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George at the High Court. Nandlall is seeking to terminate the criminal charge brought against the two men in relation to the sale of Pradoville lands.
As such, in his arguments before the High Court yesterday, Nandlall emphasized that both Singh and Brassington were acting on behalf of the Government. He suggested that if the charges were properly placed, then members of government would have been held accountable for the sale of the lands. “These two persons have not profited personally. Why are the beneficiaries (purchasers) of this deal not charged? Why are the intellectual authors not charged? Why is the board of NICIL or the company secretary not before the Court?”
The attorney had previously disputed that the charges implicated Singh and Brassington for the sale of lands at Pradoville when there is nothing in the file to substantiate the claims.
“Neither Dr. Singh nor Mr. Brassington sold anything. It was NICIL that sold it,” the lawyer said, adding that the men were merely acting on decisions made by an Executive Cabinet.
Nandlall noted too that there is no evidence to show that the men personally benefitted from the sale of the lands.
“There was no evidence that my clients benefitted personally from the sale of these lands. The properties were advertised for sale. There is no wrongdoing or misconduct, or dishonesty here, to attract a criminal sanction.”
Additionally, the Attorney told the court that the case is premised on a contention that the lands were sold without valuation.
“Which law was offended by selling the lands without obtaining a valuation?” Nandlall asked.
The lawyer also sought to challenge the valuation done by realtors Rodrigues Architects and Associates.
According to Nandlall, the figures produced by Rodrigues Architects are mere opinions.
He therefore questioned the basis of the Misconduct In Public Office charges.
Solicitor General Kim Kyte said that the court must be presented with credible information before it rules to overturn the criminal charges against former Finance Minister and Head of NICIL.
Kyte in her submission noted that a high bar is set for the interference of the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
“There are contentions that the DPP was interfered with politically. Where is the proof?”
The Solicitor General noted that there is also the contention that Singh did not sign anything so he cannot be charged. She said however that the DPP decided to charge based on the facts presented before her.
Kyte emphasized that unless evidence can be provided to the court to discredit the facts, the charges against Singh and Brassington must be sustained.
Kyte contended too that the men must be held culpable for sale of State land. “State land should not be sold at just any price.”
Last month, the court was told that the former Finance Minister and former Head of NICIL merely acted on the instructions of an Executive Cabinet in the sale of prime State lands.
However, their attorneys, Nandlall and Ronald Burch-Smith had raised contentions as they made oral submissions before Chief Justice George, on the decision to charge the men for the offence of ‘Misconduct in Public Office’ contrary to common law, saying that it is an abuse of process, malicious, biased, capricious, arbitrary, and without proper evidential basis.
Further, the lawyers said the charges were made in bad faith, unreasonable, discriminatory, unlawful, and influenced by irrelevant and improper considerations and motives, null, void, and of no effect.

Latest News

Nandlall raises contention over State’s role in sale of Pradoville lands

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 13th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Madray, Klass impress on Day Two

Sajid, Noman, Abrar share all 20 wickets as...

India skittle WI, SL bundle out Malaysia

The shortest Test match to produce a result in...

Windies crumble to spin as Pakistan seize control...

Ashby, Inverary, Lewis among winners on Friday

Features/Columnists

Mental illness is real and a serious public health concern

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Budget 2025: first take

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Nandlall raises contention over State’s role in sale of Pradoville lands

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 13th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]