By Andre Bagoo Wednesday, June 3 2009

click on pic to zoom in

What you looking for?: Local Government Minister Hazel Manning may wonder what National Security Minister Martin Joseph was looking for in an envelope...

THE COURT of Appeal ruled in December 2006 that only the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the power to decide whether or not criminal prosecutions in a case can be instituted, Tabaquite MP Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj pointed out yesterday.

Maharaj pointed out that five judges, namely the then Acting Chief Justice Roger Hamel-Smith, Justice of Appeal Ivor Archie (who was later made Chief Justice) and Justices of Appeal Margot Warner, Wendell Kangaloo and Allan Mendonca, upheld a decision handed down by High Court Judge Justice Nolan Bereaux in December 2001. The matter on adjudication was the case of The State v Seeromani Maraj-Narayansingh.“They decided that the functions of the Attorney General vis-a-vis the DPP are not prosecutorial and that only the DPP has such powers,” Maharaj said. He said the judges decided that under Section 90 of the Constitution “the DPP is under no obligation to obey any instruction or direction from the Attorney General whether arising out of such discussions or otherwise.”

And while the Attorney General has responsibility for the “administration of legal affairs”, Maharaj further noted that the panel gave guidelines over how this was interpreted. In particular, they noted that the responsibility of the Attorney General for the administration of legal affairs, so far as it affects the office of the DPP, would ordinarily include: financial matters and budgets; the provision of adequate accommodation and facilities; accounting to Parliament for the affairs of the DPP’s office.

Of the latter, the judgment notes that “the DPP would have a duty to keep the Attorney General informed of major and important matters of public interest or which affect the public interest.”

In a faxed press release Maharaj said, “The statement made by the Attorney General (John Jeremie) ...is misleading in that the Constitution does not give him the authority to prosecute or to instruct or to put pressure on the DPP to institute any criminal prosecution.”

Maharaj further noted that under current statutes, the independence of the DPP with regard to prosecutorial direction is explicitly preserved.

“The Prevention of Corruption Act expressly states that no prosecution for corruption can be commenced without the consent of the DPP,” he noted.

In The State v Seeromani Maraj-Narayansingh, it was noted that, “There is no inherent conflict between the two functions...The functions of the Attorney General do not supersede those of the DPP. They are just different.”

“Should the unhappy situation ever arise that the two offices come into conflict over the ambit of their respective powers, such matters must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis,” the judgement also noted.