Instead of wasting millions of tax dollars in commissions of enquiry this country would be better served if we establish “task forces” incorporating officials from the Director of Public Prosecution’s office and police to help in prosecuting matters, former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj has said.
Maharaj said if the $100 million Commission of Enquiry into CL Financial was not held then criminal prosecution could have already been brought against the key players involved in the collapse of the conglomerate.
According to the Commissions of Enquiry Act a commission of enquiry does not have the power to institute any criminal prosecution.
“So what you have is you have a situation in which if for example there is a matter in which the Government believes there can be criminal prosecution out of an inquiry the Commission of Enquiry is the wrong route to go,” he said.
“What you need really is that you need a sort of task force with police officers, with a special counsel and probably with some forensic help as it was done with the Picaro Airport matter in which you can then have the evidence and you would have the prosecution, the DPP’s office involved with police in instituting the prosecution,” Maharaj said.
He said a commission of enquiry was used as a ruse to give the impression that something was being done.
“A commission of enquiry is the wrong vehicle to use, and a government which uses a commission of enquiry with the intention of initiating criminal prosecutions can be accused of not really genuinely wanting to do that... What happens at a commission of enquiry is that if you want to institute criminal prosecutions after the evidence is published you can have a situation where any accused persons can allege that a fair trial is not possible, and that is why in the Clico commission of enquiry the DPP took the position that the commission of enquiry should not proceed because he already had a forensic report from Mr Lindquist,” he said.
“So I think that the issue which arises here really is was the Government at the time acting in the public interest to really appoint a commission of enquiry into the Clico matter having regard to the fact that you already had a forensic report.”
Maharaj said in his opinion it does not make sense to amend the Commissions of Enquiry Act.
“The fact now is you cannot really use a commission of enquiry because a commission of enquiry does not have the power to prosecute. It makes no sense changing the law because if you change the law to permit that, you would have to change the role of the DPP.
Any government should have known that if you wanted to get a criminal prosecution out of the Clico matter that you had to go the route of a task force with police, a special counsel possible, and a team of lawyers and representatives of the DPP’s office to get the prosecution going,” he said.
In September 2012, Gaspard wrote then attorney general Anand Ramlogan stating that he was satisfied that a criminal investigation should be conducted into whether “those who constituted the controlling mind of Clico committed breaches of the Insurance Act and similar related breaches of the Companies Act”.
Gaspard said criminal charges of a conspiracy to defraud and conceal millions of dollars would be brought against former CL Financial officials for questionable transactions taking place at the conglomerate from as far back as 1992.
Gaspard eventually wrote Colman the chairman of the enquiry into CL Financial calling on him to reconsider a decision to continue the inquiry in public.
Gaspard's six-page letter sent to Colman maintained that the public inquiry had the potential to jeopardise “a potentially strong and credible prosecution” of former CL Financial business executives on the basis of adverse pre-trial publicity.
The letter was in response to Colman's refusal to accede to a request to conduct the “potentially damaging” aspects of the inquiry in private and the “grave inaction” of Ramlogan to advise then president George Maxwell Richards to suspend the inquiry or at least vary the terms of reference of the enquiry.
Both Colman and Ramlogan insisted it was contrary to the public's interest to conduct the inquiry in private.