So, as you heard, Marshalleck makes the point that both Barrow and Patt have not made any attempts to discredit or rebut the primary evidence before the Commission of Inquiry, which suggested abuse of public trust and the irregular disposal of government vehicles. Former Prime Minister Barrow insisted to us yesterday that such a defense was not really a viable route to success.
That topic came up when we asked him about the important misstep in which the Commission did not allow all the persons named an opportunity to defend themselves. He explained why:
Daniel Ortiz
"I heard it referred to as a Salmon letter, right?"
Dean Barrow, SC - Former Prime Minister/Claimant
"Salmon. Yeah."
Daniel Ortiz
"So let's say, for example, that the commission had done that with all persons named, including yourselves."
Dean Barrow, SC
"Right?"
Daniel Ortiz
"Where they find whatever conclusions they have gotten to. But before they published their report, they give you all a free and fair opportunity to address them, to convince them that their conclusions are wrong. Would they have been able to publish their findings as they did in this report?"
Dean Barrow, SC
"Yes, the answer is yes. There is no appeal on the merits. And so except you can show that your rights were violated. Even if you feel hard done, by even if you are terribly injured by what they publish, you are left without the remedies. That subject though, to this caution. They had warned you that you are at risk. They had to give you some idea of what they were likely to say about you, and they offered you the chance to defend yourself. You did that. You can't complain. However, if that is apart, they then, in terms of coming up with their findings, use something like the police record of Juvencio Herrera, which was not before them, use something like the report from the Lands Department, which was not before them. That would also entitle you, as a claimant to go and challenge. The bottom line is you can't challenge on the merits. You can't say that 'Listen, the factual evidence that was before the commission wasn't enough for the commission to conclude adversely against me. You would get nowhere with that. But, if you can show that they came to their conclusions, number one, without giving you a chance and we've said - we've talked about that, but also that they came to their conclusions on the basis of evidence that was never before them and that was not legally available to them, that they could not and ought not to have been used. That would have been another separate basis on which you would have been able to challenge. But if they never referred to it and they never referred to the Lands Department, and they had given Patt a chance to make representations on their conclusions as to the possibility of money laundering and the possibility of accepting a bribe, then that would have been it. 'Kilich Kalach'. Patt that would have been done for."
