Former Prime Minister Said Musa was charged with the theft of $20 million in Venezuelan grant funds on December fourth of 2008. And today, exactly 8 weeks later, the preliminary inquiry into his case started. The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to determine if there’s a case that’s substantial enough to go to the Supreme Court – that’s called establishing a prima facie case. As expected Musa’s defense team which was led by Senior Counsel Edwin Flowers asked Magistrate Earl Jones to dismiss the case because there wasn’t a good enough case. So would the DPP be able to establish that there was? It proved to be a critical juncture in the case, because if the defence didn’t get the case thrown out – the next thing they would have to face is a jury and with an unpopular former Prime Minister in the dock, that’s a litigation risk his attorneys don’t want to take. High stakes, and 7NEWS was in Belmopan.
Jules Vasquez Reporting,
There were more police than PUP supporters at the Belmopan courthouse today – as the former Prime Minister had a low profile entourage, and stood calmly for an hour outside the building waiting for a court to be assigned to hear his case. And while his cheerleading section may have been slender – Musa made up for it in legal support: 9 attorneys appeared on his side today, count it, 9; and they were everywhere.
Inside the courtroom both the defence and the prosecution made 50 minute submissions and court was adjourned at noon. Magistrate Ordonez announced that he will make a decision on February tenth. Musa said thanks to his supporters and attorneys for both prosecution and defence fielded questions.
Jules Vasquez,
Did you feel overwhelmed by the presence of nine counsels for the other side, either Mr. Musa or Mr. Fonseca in court?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt, Director of Public Prosecutions
“There is no question of being intimidated or being overwhelmed. We did our investigation, we directed that a charge be laid, we thought that there
was evidence to support that charge and now it is for us to show that yes, we have the evidence and that is what we did.”
Lisa Shoman, Attorney for Said Musa
“What you witnessed today was a prosecution that not only was explaining and interpreting ‘facts’ in certain ways but was clearly making absolutely no effort to present or to look at anything that even remotely looked favourable to the defendant in this matter, Mr. Said Musa.”
Jules Vasquez,
How do you answer the criticism that you have knowingly withheld the evidence which would exculpate Mr. Musa?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“I have in my possession absolutely no evidence that can exculpate Mr. Musa.”
Jules Vasquez,
Senior Counsel Flowers says he has sent you such evidence.
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“He has sent me no such evidence.”
Lisa Shoman,
“Not only is there not enough in terms of being able to establish that within the meaning of the act, anything was committed wholly or partly in Belize and it has to be both. It is not ‘wholly or’ – it is ‘wholly and’ partly in Belize. In other words the only way the partly in Belize would work is if it is together with something else that happens elsewhere.”
Jules Vasquez,
How do you answer the question of jurisdiction, that it did not happen either wholly or partly in Belize?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“I don’t really want to go into the evidence at this stage but
it is very clear from the letter that was sent from the Prime Minister at the time, on his letterhead, giving directions for certain acts to be done in which in fact sent in train what we are saying amounted to theft at the end of the day was done within the jurisdiction and any part of the act that is done within the jurisdiction enables us then to charge as though the entire act was done.”
Jules Vasquez,
I don’t want to try the case but where did the property exist as at that time, December 24th?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“That does not make a difference, the offense was committed when the agreement was signed, the letter was handed over, and the funds were transferred.”
Jules Vasquez,
So you had a theft without the establishment of the property’s existence?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Part of the act and the offense was complete on the 28th.”
Anthony Sylvester, Attorney for Said Musa
“And that has to be the crux of the matter which we have been saying from the outset, that Mr. Musa did not assume any rights to take control of the $10 million and that is why we have said from the outset that we believe that the charges are not justifiable and that they are politically motivated.”
Jules Vasquez,
Is there anything in Mr. Flowers’ presentation that surprised you, any curved balls, anything you did not expect?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“In terms of challenges to the evidence, certainly not. But in terms of putting forward a suggestion that Mr. Musa must have thought that he had the legal right to take the money and pay off the UHS debt, I really never thought
I would have been seeing that in writing.”
Anthony Sylvester,
“There is no evidence which the prosecution has introduced to rebut what Mr. Musa had said to the Prime Minister that the Venezuelans and himself had agreed that that should not be disclosed. There is nothing before the court which has rebutted that. I would have thought that should be the easiest thing to rebut.”
Jules Vasquez,
To use his analogy, if X knows that Y owes Z – it is not an unfair undertaking for X to settle the debt with Z on Y’s behalf if X is whose job it is to act on Y’s behalf.
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“There was an agreement for money to be used for specific purpose. The person acting on behalf of the people of Belize was bound to use it for that specific purpose.”
Jules Vasquez,
He says that he had an understanding with the Venezuelans, that $10 million would go for a related purpose.
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“We see no evidence of that understanding. What we have is an agreement with specific clauses and we have a request afterwards asking for an account of that money with no reference to any $10 million that was agreed would be sent off to pay for any foreign debt.”
Lisa Shoman,
“We say that not at all has the prosecution been able to make out all the elements in order to show that there is a prima facie case establishing an offense of theft.”
Jules Vasquez,
There are only three statements in the disclosure and one of them mirrors the other, two of them are virtually identical.
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Those three statements provide all of the evidence that the prosecution needs to establish the offense.”
Jules Vasquez,
Theft against a former Prime Minister when he never possessed the property? Are three statements enough to inculpate him for that?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Yes the three statements provide all the evidence that is necessary to prove the elements.”
Anthony Sylvester,
“The issues, the legal issues that they are a little bit complex and engaging and so the Magistrate needs time to actually look over them and make a thoughtful and thorough and we trust a just and fair decision.”
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“I really do not see that a Magistrate can possibly fail to commit the accused to stand trial.”
Jules Vasquez,
Is your confidence as unswerving now as it was a few months ago when it first came court?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“If it was possible that it could have been increased then it has been increased.”
As noted in the story, Magistrate Earl Jones did not take a decision; he said he will review the submissions and announce that decision on February tenth. Attorneys in court today for the defence were Edwin Flowers, Francis Fonseca, Lisa Shoman, Dickie Bradley, Kareem Musa, Anthony Sylvester, Kevin Arthurs, Arthur Saldivar, and appearing independently, Fonseca’s attorney Mike Peyrefitte. Ralph Fonseca, who has been charged for theft of the same $20 million, will have his next hearing on February the fifth.
