Last week, we told you about the preliminary victory which UDP's Hugo Patt, the sitting Area Rep for Corozal North and the former Deputy Prime Minister, won against the final report from the Commission of Inquiry.
Both he and his attorney, former Prime Minister Dean Barrow, are before Justice Lisa Shoman on 2 separate but related lawsuits. They are challenging the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, which combed through the sale of government assets during the time period of October 2019 to November 2020, the last 13 months of the former Barrow Administration.
The Commission conducted public hearings last year. After examining the testimonies and all the supporting evidentiary documents provided to them, they found, quote, "All 112 sales of motor vehicles during the relevant period... were effected in breach of the... the Finance and Audit Reform... There was financial mismanagement of the sale of motor vehicles... which resulted... in several instances, to what amounts to the gifting of public assets to favored public officials..." End quote.
The Commission's most adverse findings were against Hugo Patt. They harshly criticized him over the saga of his one-time ministerial vehicle, a 2020 Toyota Tacoma. He has subsequently gone to the Supreme Court to complain that the Commission did not allow him the full opportunity to defend himself before their report was published.
The Commissioners are being represented in these lawsuits by Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith. The Attorney General's Ministry is being represented by hired gun, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendez. Last week, they reached a settlement that certain consent orders would be presented to the judge that vindicates Patt in his complaints against the report.
As part of that consent order, the judge granted a declaration that the Commissioners violated Patt's right to be heard when they failed to send him what is called "a Salmon letter." That letter would have disclosed certain documents, and it would have allowed him the opportunity to respond to their findings against him. She also granted an order which quashed those parts of the Report of the Commission that are harmful to Patt's reputation and integrity. Those sections will now be redacted.
All parties have agreed with the judge that Patt's substantial claim for damages against the government will be addressed alongside Dean Barrow's claim for damages. That will take place tomorrow, or the following day after the court has heard all arguments in Barrow's lawsuit.
Dean Barrow then transitioned from attorney and advocate to a claimant. He was represented by Naima Barrow, his niece. She submitted to the judge that the Commission usurped the jurisdiction and the powers of the court with the findings that they made. She added that Prime Minister Briceno is not allowed under the laws to direct any Commission of Inquiry to act in contravention of the constitution. Naima Barrow also submitted that the Commission made both expressed statements and also implied that Dean Barrow had committed crimes against the Finance and Audit Reform Act. According to Naima Barrow, the Attorney General attempted to reduce the impact of the Commission's central and serial indictment of the former Prime Minister, by reclassifying the findings as accusations and criticisms against him.
Senior Counsel Smith responded on behalf of the Commissioners, and he attempted to convince the judge that their report cannot be treated as a pronouncements from a court of law because it isn't, and it did not seek to infringe on the judiciary's role. He also submitted that the statements made in the report are non-binding and that the commission did not pretend to issue orders that come from a court of law.
Senior Counsel Mendez made his arguments in the afternoon, and he submitted that the law also gives the Commission wide latitude of investigative powers, and on any other matter that the Prime Minister thinks is of importance to public welfare. He also strongly insisted that several of Former PM Barrow's arguments were misconceived.
So, as we reported, one of the central disputes in these lawsuits is whether or not the Commission's report overreached into the territory of the judiciary. Back in January, we challenged the Commission's Chairman on this very same question, and here were his responses then:
Daniel Ortiz, reporter
"Sir, the suggestion to me especially in the case of Mr. Hugo Patt, the other side has interpreted that as a fact finding mission that a court of law would make and the suggestion was that he took a bribe."
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"No, I said the information have rise to possibilities. We didn't decide what happened. We're saying we think it's about it. It needs to be investigated. I don't see how that information that come out before the commission can be interpreted otherwise than to say look this needs to be checked further. To suggest that it's all okay, it's alright that the story was entirely in line and everything is alright would have been a complete miss from our perspective. The commission, I think is of the view and I'm saying this, this is the view that was presented that these matters are sufficient, they caused us to believe certain things and in light of that we think it needs to be passed to the authorities for investigation and action and those investigations and actions have to be in compliance with everybody's rights. It's not to bypass or to diminish in any way any rights anybody has to defend themselves."
Daniel Ortiz, reporter
"Do you disagree with that position that the findings over reached into the territory of the judiciary?"
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"No, we didn't find anybody guilty or innocent of anything."
Daniel Ortiz, reporter
"That's their insistence though, sir."
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"Thats their interpretation of it. But we didn't. We are not empowered to find anybody innocent or guilty of anything. None binding recommendations are made. There are no findings of guilt or innocent there and if anybody perceives it as that, I am here to tell you that there are none, that's a wrong perception."
The case continues tomorrow. Among the topics to be discussed is the discussion on damages that the Government - and by extension, you, the taxpayer - will have to make.
