By ANDRE BAGOO Saturday, January 16 2010

click on pic to zoom in

Justice Mira Dean-Amorer...

That summed up a query made by High Court Judge Justice Mira-Dean Armorer yesterday as she questioned lawyers acting on behalf of Udecott in judicial review proceedings the State-owned company has brought against the Uff Commission of Inquiry.

Noting that Udecott’s case against the commissioners revolved around alleged personal attacks on Hart, who is the Udecott executive chairman, the judge queried why Hart was not officially named as a party to the proceedings. Instead, she noted, the case was brought by Udecott.



“Why is Udecott the only claimant?” the judge asked lead attorney Andrew Goddard QC. “Why is Mr Hart not also a claimant? It seems as though all of your submissions in relation to bias concerned Mr Hart rather than the applicants.”



The judge’s query came as Goddard concluded oral submissions on behalf of the company which ran for 15 hours, and delivered over the course of three days ending yesterday. In response, Goddard said, “Well Mr Hart is the executive chairman of Udecott.”



“Are you saying that they are one and the same?” the judge replied.



Goddard then backtracked, saying the issue was one for Hart’s personal lawyers to decide. “I fear it might not be appropriate of me to trespass on the ground of Mr Hart’s legal team,” he said. But he added, “his (Hart’s) position as is, as executive chairman, and it is quite right and proper that the Udecott executive should advance (a defence) on behalf of its chair.”



Udecott’s legal team, led by Goddard, includes a battery of lawyers being paid for by the State to challenge State-funded inquiry proceedings. Hart has been represented in the Uff inquiry by a team of private lawyers, but the Udecott board has admitted to issuing instructions to Hart’s attorney Frank Solomon SC.



Much of Goddard’s submissions revolved around alleged apparent bias of the commissioners, particularly former commissioner Israel Khan SC, against Hart.



Lead attorney for the commissioners Michael Beloff QC yesterday launched a defence of the commission proceedings, arguing that the company was simply seeking to stymie the submission of a report to President George Maxwell Richards because of the serious accusations made against it.



“Udecott, against whom various witnesses have made serious accusations ranging from incompetence through breach of proper procedures to corruption, are apprehensive that the Commission may accept all or part of those criticisms,” the British barrister said. “And for that reason are searching for any excuse to derail the process and prevent the Commission even from submitting a report to the President.”



“This is not an allegation of bad faith,” he added, “it is a statement of the obvious. If Udecott were confident that the report would acquit them of all criticisms made of them, they would assuredly not have made this challenge. So this is an unabashed pre-emptive strike. Udecott are not prepared to see the report published first, and to determine upon the need for, or utility of a challenge thereafter.”



At the same time, Beloff noted that the report cannot, of itself, form the basis of criminal or civil proceedings. But he was silent on whether the report could be the basis of further invesitigations.



“The mindset of Udecott remains important,” he said. “They display a bunker mentality–Udecott against the world.”