And while Fonseca had the last laugh today – Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl Lynn Branker Taitt says this isn’t the end of it. She told the press that she will bring Fonseca before a high court.
Cheryl Branker-Taitt, Director of Public Prosecutions
“Definitely surprised but a trial attorney always expects the unexpected so no matter how remote one thinks the possibility is, one has to always consider these eventualities.”
Jules Vasquez,
If the case against Musa proceeded as it did as you had expected, why then did this one fail to convince the Magistrate?
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“That is a question I cannot answer. I certainly think that there were sufficient evidence to have him committed to stand trial in the supreme court. The Magistrate was of a different view but did not give any reasons for that view so I would not be able to assist in answering that question at all.”
Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney for Ralph Fonseca
“It is not surprising to me at all given the evidence, given the charge,
and given the particular accused. Ralph Fonseca was not the Minister of Finance. In her statement Audrey Wallace, the CEO in the office of the Prime Minister stated very clearly that the decision to spend the money how it was spent was the decision of the Prime Minister who was the Minister of Finance and I think on that alone, surely on the charge of theft given in these circumstances, Ralph Fonseca could never be committed to the Supreme Court for trial. It is just not the evidence under law.”
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“I disagree with him on that. We had direct evidence that he was involved in giving directions on the very date that the agreement would have been signed which amounted to theft.”
Jules Vasquez,
But he didn’t sign anything.
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“It doesn’t matter that he didn’t sign anything. He gave instructions for the signing of the agreement knowing full well what the agreement would have contained and what would have been done later on with the money once it had changed hands.”
Marion Ali, News 5
“Do you think that you can come back with perhaps other charges that you’re looking at or can look at against Mr. Fonseca?”
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“No I can invoke the Indictable Procedures Act and I can take the matter to the Supreme Court and ask a judge to commit or I can seek to reopen the inquiry.”
Marion Ali,
“Are you considering any of those?”
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“Well definitely of course. The matter does not end here at all.”
Jules Vasquez,
So you remain convinced that Minister Fonseca has a case to answer?
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“Definitely Jules the evidence in my view is clear, the law is clear and I think he should have been committed.”
Michael Peyrefitte,
“From the time of the Shirley biscuits analogy I knew there was no case. I don’t know. The DPP certainly has certain things by law that she can do and I will just wait for those to be done. But I won’t speculate as to what the DPP will or will not do.”
Cheryl Branker-Taitt,
“I need to say that the Magistrate has given a ruling but it is not a ruling that I agree with, with the greatest of respect to him. So we will take the matter further. It is not that my view has suddenly changed because of the way in which the Magistrate has ruled.”
And while the DPP is still smarting over this loss, she’ll have to contend with another formidable challenge soon. March 11th has been set as the date for the hearing of an application for judicial review of the decision Magistrate Jones made committing former Prime Minister Said Musa to stand trial in the Supreme Court.
