The Tribune

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

STATE Legal Affairs Minister Damian Gomez yesterday denied that political favoritism played a role in Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson’s decision not to bring charges against anyone in the judicial interference case involving MICAL MP V Alfred Gray and Mayagunana Administrator Zephaniah Newbold.

Mr Gomez was responding to Montagu MP Richard Lightbourn’s criticism of the Christie administration’s handling of the matter insisting the process leading to the decision not to charge anyone from beginning to end had been flawed.

While speaking in the House of Assembly, Mr Lightbourn further accused the government of covering up the circumstance surrounding the nolle prosequi which was signed by Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald, who was acting as attorney general at the time. Mr Lightbourn previously called for a select committee to look into the case, but it was rejected when the motion went to a vote among MPs.

Last month, the Office of the Attorney General released a statement citing a conflicting “nature of evidence” as reason to not “institute criminal proceedings” against any person connected to the Mayaguana matter.

However, Mr Lightbourn insisted that conflicting evidence is in most cases the basis of why a case must go to trial.

“We have a situation here where a member of the government has become involved in a matter which has raised serious issues as to whether or not it is something that a minister should have become involved in,” Mr Lightbourn told parliamentarians.

“The matter was reviewed by the attorney general which I would submit in our legal system is totally wrong to have someone who is a member of the same Cabinet determining the issues which involves another member.”

He continued: “But what I found curious, Mr Speaker, was the statement which came from the Attorney General’s Office and that is the most extraordinary statement that I think I have seen come out of any department of government.

“Now the attorney general says, ‘no we can’t charge him, (there is) conflicting evidence.’ That is the whole purpose of having court. That is the whole purpose of having a jury. So what does that demonstrate to the people of this country? Do we have one law for persons in authority and one law for somebody else? Why do you charge your young men from wherever in town that has drugs on them?”

Earlier this year, the FNM accused Mr Gray of interfering in the course of justice when he contacted Mr Newbold, who was acting as a magistrate in Mayaguana, following his conviction and sentencing of 19-year-old Jaquan Charlton.

Mr Newbold ordered the teen to serve a three-month prison sentence for assaulting a police officer. Shortly after Mr Gray telephoned Mr Newbold, the magistrate ordered the teen’s release – even though he had been sentenced hours earlier.

Mr Newbold later alleged that he felt threatened by Mr Gray to release the teen, a claim Mr Gray denied.

After a police investigation, the Office of the Attorney General decided not to proceed with charges against anyone.

In light of Mr Lightbourn’s criticisms, Mr Gomez stood yesterday to defend the attorney general. He said Allyson Maynard Gibson was fully within her right to make the decision based on the power she possesses in the post.

Mr Gomez said: “The member says that there is something wrong with the attorney general to decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings because in a particular instance the subject matter of the analysis is a member of Cabinet. The constitution makes no such provision and it requires the attorney general and the attorney general alone to make the determination whether to prosecute or whether not to prosecute.

“Without going into the facts of the case, which are not before the House, there is nothing in the decision to not proceed against the member of Parliament from MICAL to suggest political favoritism. Merely saying it does not make it so and it really imputes to the Office of the Attorney General a level of malice.”

Mr Lightbourn also touched on the nolle prosequi that involved George and Janice Hayles, who each faced a charge of possession of a firearm and ammunition. Police said they were found with a .380 pistol and 19 live rounds for the weapon.

The accused, represented by Mrs Maynard-Gibson before her appointment as attorney general, pleaded not guilty to the charges at their arraignment days after their arrest in 2010.

The discontinuation of the charges took place in December 2012.

The document bore Mr Fitzgerald’s signature because Mrs Maynard-Gibson was out of the country at the time.

Not long after the charges were dropped, Mr Fitzgerald issued a statement saying he was satisfied that grounds existed for his decision. He said he did so because it was a matter of national security.