?That?s what an attorney does; that?s their right, that?s their work,? he expressed.

?It has a direct effect?on due process for the accused, because then, how can an attorney then represent a person who is charged, if they [the attorneys] are going to then be charged. So it is a major concern for attorneys, but it should also be a major concern for the wider public?how can they receive legal counsel? Will they [the attorneys] want to represent them, having fear for their liberty?? Coye remarked. Coye said that he was merely filling in for his colleague, Salazar, who was on vacation for a week, when the money laundering case for Pegasus Resources Limited was called up in court.

Today, Barrow told us that he does not understand why the DPP wanted to prosecute him and the Atlantic Bank on money laundering charges when the Supreme Court had twice dismissed the charges against the accused companies.

?In all instances, we were successful?the court ordered in our favor,? Coye said. He said that he had seen, in writing, that the DPP was considering bringing charges against Barrow and Godfrey for money laundering.

?This arose out of the representation that Christopher Coye, the president of the Bar, and I provided for a company called Pegasus Resources Limited,? Barrow said. ?The Financial Intelligence Unit [FIU] had applied to freeze the account of Pegasus Resources Limited at Atlantic Bank International, after it had filed money laundering charges against Pegasus?

?Justice [Adolph] Lucas found that there was no evidence to suggest that the account of Pegasus Resources, that the FIU was trying to freeze, was in any way connected with money laundering, and so he refused the application?he said that Pegasus was free to use the account and deal with the monies as they wish?We were paid fees from that account.

But the matter did not end there. ?A month or so after that,? Barrow said, ?the DPP?s office applied again to freeze the [Pegasus] account? [a US-dollar account], and I, at that second hearing, appeared together with Aldo Salazar, from the Glenn Godfrey law firm. This one was heard by the Chief Justice,? he continued.

However, the attorneys argued that the second application was an abuse of the court system, since the Supreme Court had already ruled on the case, said Barrow, adding that the proper thing to have done was to appeal the ruling, instead of bringing it again before the same court.

On September 13, the Chief Justice ruled in favor of the accused, and found that it amounted to abuse of process, but took the trouble to say, again, that on the evidence that the DDP had provided, there was not even an iota of a suggestion of money laundering, Barrow said.

Barrow told us that right after the Chief Justice?s ruling, he had ?a run-in? with DPP Anderson, telling him that he was out of order to have brought the matter a second time before the court, and that he should not be where he was unfit to be, in the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

?That same evening,? said Barrow, ?he [the DPP] wrote to the director of the FIU [Keith Arnold], asking him to provide him with information, as he was contemplating bringing charges against the attorneys??

Five days later, the FIU wrote back to the DPP, relating that it had learned that the court had dismissed the money laundering cases and that one of the attorneys had threatened that the prosecutors were on the verge of being slapped with a contempt of court suit.

?It?s his personal vendetta,? said Barrow, who told us that to date, no formal charges have been filed against him or any other attorney. However, Barrow said that he has learned that the DPP still intends to proceed with the prosecution against him.

?The prosecution would be entirely a bad faith one,? he commented.