Judiciary, attorneys caution against prejudging Dabideen probe

KEVON FELMINE

Se­nior Re­porter

[email protected]

The Ju­di­cia­ry and the As­sem­bly of South­ern Lawyers are urg­ing re­spect for due process and the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence as Act­ing Chief Mag­is­trate Bri­an Dabideen re­mains un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion for cor­rup­tion.

Their state­ments fol­lowed Mon­day’s po­lice search of Dabideen’s home in Gulf View, San Fer­nan­do, dur­ing which of­fi­cers seized elec­tron­ic de­vices as part of a wider probe in­volv­ing lo­cal and in­ter­na­tion­al agen­cies. The case adds to a list of past con­tro­ver­sies in­volv­ing se­nior ju­di­cial of­fi­cers, though each dif­fers in its facts and out­come.

The Ju­di­cia­ry said that while it was aware of re­ports about the ex­e­cu­tion of a search war­rant in re­la­tion to Dabideen, it would make no fur­ther com­ment to pro­tect the fair­ness and in­tegri­ty of any on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion or le­gal pro­ceed­ings.

“The Ju­di­cia­ry recog­nis­es the im­por­tance of the core le­gal prin­ci­ples of due process, the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence and that all per­sons are con­sid­ered to be equal be­fore the law. Giv­en the na­ture of the mat­ter, the Ju­di­cia­ry will re­frain from fur­ther com­ment at this time to safe­guard the fair­ness and in­tegri­ty of any on­go­ing in­ves­tiga­tive or le­gal process­es,” the Ju­di­cia­ry stat­ed.

The As­sem­bly of South­ern Lawyers said pub­licly avail­able in­for­ma­tion was lim­it­ed and urged the au­thor­i­ties to pro­ceed in­de­pen­dent­ly and fair­ly. It con­sid­ered it pre­ma­ture to com­ment sub­stan­tive­ly at this stage.

“The in­for­ma­tion pub­licly avail­able is lim­it­ed, and we would not wish to spec­u­late or pre­judge any on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion. The pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence and due process must be re­spect­ed, and the rel­e­vant au­thor­i­ties should be al­lowed to dis­charge their re­spon­si­bil­i­ties in­de­pen­dent­ly and fair­ly,” the as­sem­bly said.

Dabideen’s at­tor­ney, Prakash Ra­mad­har, said his client co-op­er­at­ed and vol­un­tar­i­ly hand­ed over his elec­tron­ic de­vices. He al­so said Dabideen was will­ing to as­sist with the in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Dabideen has not been ar­rest­ed or charged, and his at­tor­neys have de­nied wrong­do­ing.

Pub­lic aware­ness of the mat­ter be­gan in June when a news­pa­per re­port­ed that the ar­rest of a sit­ting mag­is­trate was im­mi­nent. The re­port did not name the mag­is­trate. Cit­ing an in­tel­li­gence re­port, it al­leged that a se­nior ju­di­cial of­fi­cer had re­ceived tens of thou­sands of US dol­lars in bribes in at least two cas­es in ex­change for favourable rul­ings.

The al­leged in­stances con­cerned re­turn­ing seized lo­cal and for­eign cur­ren­cy to a per­son sus­pect­ed of pay­ing a bribe, and a rul­ing that firearms should be re­turned to an ac­cused per­son. The next day, Dabideen ap­peared at a news con­fer­ence with Ra­mad­har, who said the mag­is­trate had done noth­ing wrong. At­tor­ney Michael Rooplal al­so de­fend­ed him, say­ing he had act­ed ac­cord­ing to law af­ter hear­ing the pros­e­cu­tion’s sub­mis­sions.

A search war­rant does not, by it­self, es­tab­lish that an of­fence has been com­mit­ted. How­ev­er, po­lice have de­scribed the search as part of a wider probe in­to re­port­ed ar­eas in­clud­ing bribery, pub­lic cor­rup­tion, fraud and mon­ey laun­der­ing.

It is not the first time a se­nior ju­di­cial of­fi­cer has found them­selves em­broiled in con­tro­ver­sy. In 2006, then-chief mag­is­trate Sher­man Mc­Ni­cholls ac­cused then-chief jus­tice Sat­nar­ine Shar­ma of try­ing to in­flu­ence how he han­dled for­mer prime min­is­ter Bas­deo Pan­day’s tri­al over de­c­la­ra­tions re­quired un­der the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act. Shar­ma was dis­charged from crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings in 2007 af­ter Mc­Ni­cholls de­clined to con­tin­ue giv­ing ev­i­dence and be cross-ex­am­ined.

A sep­a­rate con­sti­tu­tion­al tri­bunal lat­er found no ev­i­dence to im­peach Shar­ma. Mc­Ni­cholls faced six dis­ci­pli­nary charges over his re­fusal to con­tin­ue tes­ti­fy­ing. The High Court quashed four; the re­main­ing charges were not fi­nal­ly de­ter­mined be­fore he re­tired in 2010.

For­mer chief jus­tice Ivor Archie faced con­tro­ver­sy in 2017-18 over re­ports of an al­leged as­so­ci­a­tion with con­vict­ed felon Dil­lian John­son. The Law As­so­ci­a­tion in­ves­ti­gat­ed, and the Privy Coun­cil al­lowed its in­quiry to pro­ceed. Then-prime min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley did not rec­om­mend a sec­tion 137 tri­bunal. Archie re­tired in Oc­to­ber 2025.

For­mer chief mag­is­trate Mar­cia Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s case was dif­fer­ent. Af­ter her 2017 High Court ap­point­ment, ques­tions arose about un­fin­ished cas­es at the Port-of-Spain Mag­is­trates’ Court. The Ju­di­cia­ry said 53 part-heard mat­ters had to restart. She re­signed with­in weeks and lat­er chal­lenged the cir­cum­stances, al­leg­ing pres­sure from the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice Com­mis­sion. Her case was not a crim­i­nal cor­rup­tion probe.