Last week, we gave you a detailed look at a few of the important findings from the Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Government assets during the last 13 months of the Barrow Administration.
We've shown you the Commission's concerns about the poor management of the government's vehicle fleet, as well as a few of the recommended fixes for proper disposal of assets purchased with public funds. We also showed you the strong reactions from some of the former UDP Ministers who were criticized in the report. Well tonight, we've confirmed that Former Deputy Prime Minister Hugo Patt has initiated a lawsuit to challenge those findings.
You'll remember that the Commission has recommended that he be investigated for possible prosecution over the tale of his Toyota Tacoma and the multiple questionable business deals it was involved in. Well, 7News has confirmed that his attorney, former Prime Minister Dean Barrow, has filed an application to bring a judicial review claim against the Commission.
Patt has to convince the presiding judge to first grant him leave to bring his lawsuit. Along with this application, he and his attorney are also asking the court for an interim injunction to stop the government from implementing the recommendations of this report. He is asking the court to restrain the government and its agents from trying to act on the Commission's findings that he should be criminally investigated. If granted, that injunction would likely last until the conclusion of this lawsuit.
We understand that Patt has submitted 3 grounds to convince the court to hear him. He is insisting that the Commission of Inquiry, which was supposed to be an independent, fact-finding tribunal, was tainted with bias.
Next, we understand that Patt intends to complain that his constitutional rights and his rights to natural justice were violated.
Also, he takes issue with the fact that the harshly critical findings were published without allowing him an opportunity to defend his actions. We are told that he thinks that he should have been given the opportunity to try to convince the tribunal that their conclusions about him were wrong.
And finally, we are told that he will challenge the findings on the grounds that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and took on matters that weren't properly before it.
We'll be following the case closely, and as soon as the matter comes up for hearing, we'll tell you about it.
