For the past 2 nights, we've been telling you about the lawsuits that the UDP's Hugo Patt and Dean Barrow have brought against the Briceno Government and the Commission of Inquiry into the sale of government assets.
Former Prime Minister Barrow and former Deputy Prime Minister Patt have gone to the Supreme Court to complain against the Commission's final report. They have pointed out what they believe were fatal missteps in the procedure, which resulted in the violation of their rights to natural justice.
Both claimants have attempted to convince Justice Lisa Shoman to grant each of them a massive award of damages against the government. In their view, the Commission, which was chaired by Senior Counsel E. Andrew Marshalleck, went outside of its terms of reference, formed adverse opinions about them, and failed to allow them a fair opportunity to confront those adverse criticisms before they were published in the final report.
Yesterday, you heard former Prime Minister Barrow lambaste Marshalleck for exposing the government - and by extension, you, the taxpayer - for the misconduct of the Commission of Inquiry. Well today, we got an opportunity to get a full response from Chairman Marshalleck.
He spoke with us at his office at midday, and here's what he had to say about the concessions that have been made in the lawsuits so far:
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Chairman, Commission of Inquiry
"The Commission had intended to call them back and offer them the opportunity. But the way things folded out, it didn't happen. So, it should have happened in the circumstances. The Commission could do no more than it did, which is to receive the complaints, examine them, see which ones they agreed with, and the ones they agreed with, seek to correct them. And, that is what we've we've done. We've agreed that certain things should be removed from the report. Now, we have not agreed to everything. We think there's been an overzealous approach to pour scorn on the report, which is what Mr. Barrow said he would do. And from his perspective, I can understand why he would want to do that."
Daniel Ortiz
"Why is it that we're at the point where we're trying to correct wrongs in the management of the vehicle fleet, but at the same time at risk of paying these huge sums of damages, though? That is the only complaint one can make."
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"The - as you're well aware, the law has always developed in a way - and it's deliberate. It's designed to ensure - it's built on a fundamental principle that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than it is to convict, wrongly, one innocent person. The law is heavily tilted in favor of the accused. There's no doubt about that. As to the requirements for any Salmon letter, the first time as a senior counsel I heard about it, was when it was raised in these proceedings. There's nothing in a law that even remotely mentions it. An overall obligation of fairness, we recognize that, and it is out of that sense of obligation that we have sought to correct as far as we are able to."
