The Court of Appeal's decision on statements by politicians on the appeal over the Estate Management Business Development Company Ltd's multi-million-dollar cartel claim lawsuit against a group of contractors and a former government minister will be known after June 30.
On that date, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Maria Wilson are expected to give their decision in an appeal filed by four of the contractors against a judge’s preliminary ruling in August 2020, which gave the EMBD the green light to pursue its claim.
Not all the parties who are named as defendants in the EMBD's claim appealed the 2020 ruling of the High Court. They agreed to file their defences 45 days after the Appeal Court gives it ruling based on the outcome of the appeal.
Former People's Partnership minister Dr Roodal Moonilal was a party to the consent agreement, as he did not appeal Aboud’s ruling. The consent order was entered and signed off by the three judges on May 26, when they reserved their ruling on the appeal.
At hearing at the Hall of Justice on Friday, the judges said they will also give their decision on what action they will take on a complaint one of the contractors raised about statements by the Prime Minister on June 12, as well as subsequent statements by Moonilal, the Oropouche East MP, on June 19.
Dr Rowley spoke at a media briefing at the Diplomatic Centre, St Ann’s and Moonilal spoke at a UNC meeting at the Aranguez North Secondary School. Both mentioned the EMBD appeal.
Earlier this week, attorneys for the EMBD and the contractors were summoned to Friday’s hearing to discuss a letter to the court from an attorney representing one of the appellants. That letter, sent to the court last Friday, referred to the Prime Minister’s statements and registered their client's “shock and upset” that the political arm of the State had spoken of a judgment being delivered by the court against them.
The judges questioned lead attorney for the contractors, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, who took strong objection to the court’s “interrogation.” He said sending the letter to the court, which he approved, was his duty as an attorney to raise the issue to “set the record straight...
“We were genuinely trying to assist the court.”
He also said his clients had full confidence in the judges. otherwise they would have asked them to disqualify themselves. or raised a bias complaint.
At Friday’s hearing, Dr Rowley’s statements were read out and a video recording of Moonilal’s address at the UNC meeting was played on one of the large flat-screen computer monitors at the Hall of Justice, before a packed courtroom of attorneys. The judges did not say what drew their attention to the statements made by Moonilal, but did ask the attorneys whether they had received an e-mail of the video.
Maharaj, who said his letter was sent after the PM’s statements were reported in the media, was asked why he chose not to contact the Prime Minister directly, or the State’s attorneys. He said he did not know what Moonilal had s
