SENIOR State Counsel, Judith Mursalin, delivering an affidavit in answer to an affidavit by the applicant, filed in support of the application in issue for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition, which had asked the Director Public Prosecution (DPP) and Police Officers to show cause why they advised that the applicant be charged with perjury, said: “A police file came for advice, and having perused the statements and documents therein, I found there was evidence to support a charge of perjury, contrary to Section 325 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:01; and accordingly, I so advised.”
“That in relation to paragraph 7, the applicant in his affidavit in support of his ex parte application, dated 30th January, 2012, stated under oath that he, as Secretary of the Guyana Cricket Board, which is an unincorporated body, held certain listed items in trust; the same items as listed in that paragraph.
“That further, in relation to paragraph 7, on the 25th day of August, 2011, a legal entity known as the D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc. was incorporated. Attached hereto and collectively marked ‘DPP 1 – DPP 15’ is a copy of the incorporation documents.
“That additionally, in relation to paragraph 7, I am aware that:
(a) On the 29th day of August, 2011, a Deed of Transfer dated 24th day of August, 2011, was entered into between Chetram Singh and Lionel Jaikaran, in their capacity as Trustees of GCB and D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc., represented by its Director/ Secretary Anand Sanasie, and Fizul Bacchus, Director.
(b) By virtue of the said Deed of Transfer, all the assets and properties of the Guyana Cricket Board were transferred to D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc. for its sole use and benefit; and D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc. was to take all necessary legal steps to regularize its ownership of the said assets and properties.
(c) This Deed was duly filed at the Deeds Registry.
(d) The applicant, being a signatory to the said Deed of Transfer, was cognizant of the fact that since August 29, 2011, the assets of the Guyana Cricket Board were transferred to D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc.; and therefore, he could not hold same “in trust” as Secretary to the Guyana Cricket Board.
“That as regards paragraph 17, the police file confirms that the applicant was taken before the Magistrate to answer the said charge of perjury instituted against him.
“That paragraph 18 is admitted insofar as it relates to the article published in the Stabroek News on the 10th day of July, 2012.
That paragraph 19 is admitted to the extent that the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote a letter to the Editor of the Stabroek News paper in response to the applicant’s statements in the aforementioned publication of the 10th day of July 2012.
“Further the Director of Public Prosecutions had never spoken to any police officer in relation to the charge instituted against the applicant, since the records at the Chambers reflect that the police file was received only once for advice, and which was given based on the statements, documents and reports in the file.
“Further, I am advised by my Attorneys-at-law, and do verily believe, the publications contained in the newspapers.
“That as regards paragraph 20, I verily believe that paragraph 25 of the applicant’s affidavit on which the charge of perjury is predicated is capable of sustaining a viable charge of perjury; and there is a reasonable and realistic prospect of conviction, as it is evident that the applicant knowingly made a false statement in which he clearly and unambiguously said that he, as Secretary of the Guyana Cricket Board, holds the items in trust, knowing fully well that the items referred to in the said affidavit did not remain in the name of the Guyana Cricket Board, as the Deed of Transfer clearly and unambiguously states.
“That I verily believe that the application in issue for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition filed herein against the Commissioner of Police (Ag.), Mr. Leroy Brumell; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law Enforcement, Seelall Persaud; Police Officer, Chetran Sewsankar; Chief Magistrate, Her Worship Priya Sewnarine-Beharry; and Shalimar Ali-Hack, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Honourable court; and that the Order Nisi granted ought not to be made absolute.
“This affidavit in answer was drawn on my instructions, and on my behalf, by the Hon. Attorney General, Mr. Mohabir Anil Nandlall, whom I authorise to be my Attorney-at-law in this cause, and to do all things necessary on my behalf.”
“That in relation to paragraph 7, the applicant in his affidavit in support of his ex parte application, dated 30th January, 2012, stated under oath that he, as Secretary of the Guyana Cricket Board, which is an unincorporated body, held certain listed items in trust; the same items as listed in that paragraph.
“That further, in relation to paragraph 7, on the 25th day of August, 2011, a legal entity known as the D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc. was incorporated. Attached hereto and collectively marked ‘DPP 1 – DPP 15’ is a copy of the incorporation documents.
“That additionally, in relation to paragraph 7, I am aware that:
(a) On the 29th day of August, 2011, a Deed of Transfer dated 24th day of August, 2011, was entered into between Chetram Singh and Lionel Jaikaran, in their capacity as Trustees of GCB and D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc., represented by its Director/ Secretary Anand Sanasie, and Fizul Bacchus, Director.
(b) By virtue of the said Deed of Transfer, all the assets and properties of the Guyana Cricket Board were transferred to D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc. for its sole use and benefit; and D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc. was to take all necessary legal steps to regularize its ownership of the said assets and properties.
(c) This Deed was duly filed at the Deeds Registry.
(d) The applicant, being a signatory to the said Deed of Transfer, was cognizant of the fact that since August 29, 2011, the assets of the Guyana Cricket Board were transferred to D.E.B. Essential Organisation Inc.; and therefore, he could not hold same “in trust” as Secretary to the Guyana Cricket Board.
“That as regards paragraph 17, the police file confirms that the applicant was taken before the Magistrate to answer the said charge of perjury instituted against him.
“That paragraph 18 is admitted insofar as it relates to the article published in the Stabroek News on the 10th day of July, 2012.
That paragraph 19 is admitted to the extent that the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote a letter to the Editor of the Stabroek News paper in response to the applicant’s statements in the aforementioned publication of the 10th day of July 2012.
“Further the Director of Public Prosecutions had never spoken to any police officer in relation to the charge instituted against the applicant, since the records at the Chambers reflect that the police file was received only once for advice, and which was given based on the statements, documents and reports in the file.
“Further, I am advised by my Attorneys-at-law, and do verily believe, the publications contained in the newspapers.
“That as regards paragraph 20, I verily believe that paragraph 25 of the applicant’s affidavit on which the charge of perjury is predicated is capable of sustaining a viable charge of perjury; and there is a reasonable and realistic prospect of conviction, as it is evident that the applicant knowingly made a false statement in which he clearly and unambiguously said that he, as Secretary of the Guyana Cricket Board, holds the items in trust, knowing fully well that the items referred to in the said affidavit did not remain in the name of the Guyana Cricket Board, as the Deed of Transfer clearly and unambiguously states.
“That I verily believe that the application in issue for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition filed herein against the Commissioner of Police (Ag.), Mr. Leroy Brumell; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law Enforcement, Seelall Persaud; Police Officer, Chetran Sewsankar; Chief Magistrate, Her Worship Priya Sewnarine-Beharry; and Shalimar Ali-Hack, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Honourable court; and that the Order Nisi granted ought not to be made absolute.
“This affidavit in answer was drawn on my instructions, and on my behalf, by the Hon. Attorney General, Mr. Mohabir Anil Nandlall, whom I authorise to be my Attorney-at-law in this cause, and to do all things necessary on my behalf.”
No comments:
Post a Comment