The Tribune

By RICARDO WELLS 

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

ONE day after admitting star witness Barbara Hanna made mistakes in her testimony, prosecutors in the Frank Smith bribery and extortion trial yesterday sought to repair her credibility, while also highlighting case elements they say prove the accused solicited payments for influencing Hanna’s receipt of a $500,000 contract.

Chief among the submissions given by lead Crown attorney Edward Jenkins, QC, was the defence of Mrs Hanna’s many outbursts during the trial to date, occurrences he dismissed as the responses of a woman “easily frustrated.”

Secondary to that, was the suggestion that there was nothing “sinister” in Mrs Hanna’s contact with two current Cabinet ministers in the lead up to Smith’s arrest and questioning.

Mr Jenkins was countering key points in the defence’s “no case” submission. A position he yesterday argued held no ground, given Mrs Hanna’s consistent claim that she was approached by Smith for thousands of dollars as a kickback for her Magic Touch cleaning company being awarded a $500,000 annual contract from the Public Hospitals Authority.

According to Mr Jenkins, when placed into context, much of Mrs Hanna’s dismissive responses given to questions related to her husband, Edgar David Hanna, and two sons, should be viewed as nothing more than a woman openly frustrated and annoyed by questions she viewed as an “intrusion” of her privacy.

Keith Knight, QC, Smith’s lead attorney, had at one point in cross-examination put to Hanna, “Do you know Edgar David Hanna?” which yielded the response: “I don’t recall.”

Mr Knight, who at the time noted that Hanna seemed frustrated, further questioned how was it she could not recall the name of her spouse of 20 years.

Mr Jenkins said occurrences such as these, and her inability to identify the signature of one of her sons, someone she supported in getting a loan from Smith, all needed to be placed in the context of Mrs Hanna being a distraught witness being pressed by the defence.

In an observation of the submission however, Chief Magistrate Joyann Ferguson-Pratt pointed out that if she was to accept that position, she would also have to accept that the witness had also had several “eureka” moments during testimony - pointing out that Mrs Hanna would say one thing, and then returned moments later to change her answers.

Chief Magistrate Ferguson-Pratt asked Mr Jenkins if he and his team stood secure in the fact that the position meant Mrs Hanna could be viewed as unreliable in areas critical to the case.

In response, Mr Jenkins said that persons looking in on the case would have to appreciate what Mrs Hanna had said, and not necessarily how it was said.

In a subsequent question, Chief Magistrate Ferguson-Pratt asked if it was the prosecution’s view that Mrs Hanna’s behaviour should be excused, to which Jenkins asserted: “No.”

He later expressed that while she shouldn’t be excused, she should also not be viewed as “lying.”

On the second point attacked by prosecutors yesterday, Mr Jenkins suggested the defence’s argument that Mrs Hanna, Health Minister Dr Duane Sands and National Security Minister Marvin Dames all colluded to build a case against Smith, could not stand if tested.

Mr Jenkins told the court Mr Dames met with Hanna openly in public, a factor he argued showed that he had no motive to collude.

He said once Mr Dames met with Mrs Hanna, he referred her to Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Rolle, the officer-in-charge of the Royal Bahamas Police Force’s Anti-Corruption Unit, who subsequently turned her over to another officer, who furthered the investigation of Smith.

Mr Jenkins then submitted that the only argument that could be made, would be that of Dr Sands approving a second PHA contract for Mrs Hanna in the amount of $1.9m without board approval.

Addressing this specifically, Mr Jenkins yesterday submitted that if the argument is made, one would have to also accept Dr Sands’ testimony that he only moved to approve the contract for Magic Touch without the board’s blessing because of a “crisis” at the Princess Margaret Hospital where the contractor at the time was underperforming.

It is alleged Smith, former PHA chairman, between April 2016 and April 2017, demanded and obtained $5,000 per month from Mrs Hanna, knowing he was not lawfully authorised to do so.

He is also alleged to have attempted to extort another $5,000 from Mrs Hanna. And concerning the bribery charge, it is alleged that he solicited $5,000 a month from Mrs Hanna for helping her to get a PHA contract.

The case resumes today and the judge is expected to deliver a written ruling on the matter on February 1.