Six months and four days ago, on December 4, 2008, the former Prime Minister and area representative for Fort George, Hon. Said Musa, surrendered himself to Belmopan police. He was fingerprinted and taken to the Magistrate’s Court, where he was arraigned on a single charge for the theft of US 10 million dollars.
On February 10, Belmopan Magistrate, Earl Jones, committed Musa to stand trial in the Supreme Court, but Musa’s attorneys applied for a judicial review of that decision, seeking to obtain a writ of certiorari to put aside the Magistrate’s decision.
This morning, Chief Justice, Dr. Abduli Conteh, handed down his decision on the judicial review in the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice’s judgment in Supreme Court Claim # 155 of 2009, began at 10:06 a.m. and concluded at 11:55 a.m.
In it, CJ Conteh found that Magistrate Earl Jones had wrongfully committed Musa to stand trial in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the CJ quashed the Magistrate’s order.
The charge against Musa read as follows: “For that SAID MUSA, on 28th day of December 2007, in the City of Belmopan, in the Cayo Judicial District, stole the sum of US $10,000,000.00, the property of the Government of Belize.”
The CJ meticulously outlined the circumstances leading to the charge of theft that Musa, and later, Ralph Fonseca, the former Minister of Housing was arraigned on.
He quoted from a letter that Prime Minister Musa wrote to the Venezuelan vice Minister of Finance, Sr., Rafael E. Isea on December 23, 2007.
“Musa told Isea that approval had been received for US $10 million dollars to repay ‘our government’s bank obligations and US $1 million dollars toward counterpart funds for a Stadium being built … and US $9 million dollars for ongoing works as a non repayable grant.’”
The letter continued, outlining the government’s request for the disbursement of the grant money. “We are asking that US $10 million dollars of these funds be transferred to the Bank of America … account of (the) Belize Bank … The other US $10 million dollars should be transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (for) the Central Bank of Belize’s account.”
It was in this letter that Musa informed the Venezuelans that he was dispatching Amalia Mai to Caracas to sign the grant papers on behalf of the Government of Belize.
CJ Conteh noted that a deposition was taken from Amalia Mai by Magistrate Jones on December 31, 2008.
The grounds on which Musa’s defense argued that the committal order be quashed are as follows:1. That in committing the claimant, the defendant wrongfully assumed jurisdiction in the light of his finding that the offence of theft with which the claimant was charged was committed abroad. 2. That the admissible evidence put before the defendant disclosed no indictable offence, in particular the offence of theft alleged against the claimant. 3. In committing the claimant on 10 February 2009, while later on 3rd March, 2009, discharging Ralph Fonseca who was charged with the same offence of theft and against whom the same evidence was proffered, the defendant’s committal order against the claimant was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense and therefore perverse and unsustainable. 4. The defendant admitted inadmissible evidence in committing the claimant.
Before examining the issues raised, Conteh pointed out that his role was not that of a trial judge, of the offence alleged against the claimant.
“My role is principally to see if there is any merit in the arguments and grounds raised by the claimant against the defendant’s decision to commit him to stand trial. And, if all or any of the grounds of complaints are sustained, I should, as these are judicial review proceedings, grant or refuse a remedy”
In summing up his extremely detailed judgment, Conteh found that Musa acted in his public
capacity; he may have been guilty of political recklessness, said the CJ, but there is no evidence to substantiate the charge of theft.
On the question of the deposition that was taken from Amalia Mai, Conteh found that Mai could have been deposed by another magistrate:
“It is perhaps understandable that the defendant came to the conclusion that he did. That is to say, as he found, ‘From the evidence before this Court, it is clear that the offence was committed abroad …;’ but, in my view, he [the defendant Earl Jones] seriously erred when he concluded ‘in which the intended result which is the commission of a criminal offence occurring in Belize.’ (Sic)
He went on to reason that there was only one single charge of theft against the single claimant, and so, once it was found, based on the evidence “submitted before him” that “‘it (was) clear that (that) offence was committed abroad’”, it was “incumbent upon the defendant to discharge the claimant.” He therefore classified references or arguments about the “intended result” of the act being “the commission of a criminal offence occurring in Belize” as being “gratuitous.” There was, in his view, no need for the reference, he said. He thus summarized the premise that “it was clear that the offence was committed abroad.” and restated that “the claimant was charged with only the offence of theft in Belize.” He deduced, based on these premises that, “Clearly therefore, the defendant having found, according to the evidence, that the offence was committed abroad, could not properly and lawfully have committed the claimant, as he did, to stand trial in the Supreme Court.” It was further stated that “That the defendant, on this finding, committed the claimant to stand trial for the offence of theft in the Supreme Court, he fell, in my view, into a grave error”.
The CJ also assessed the relevance of statements made by Prime Minister Dean Barrow and CEO Wallace to the determination of whether Musa should answer to charges of theft: “In the first place, as regards Mr. Barrow’s and Ms. Wallace’s statements,” he stated, “I am satisfied that a careful read through these statements do not disclose or lead to any reasonable conclusion that the claimant or Mr. Fonseca (who was with the claimant at the audience with the Prime Minister) committed the offence of theft.” The CJ went on to declare that these statements “at the highest, …were only recounting what Mr. Barrow said the claimant and Mr. Fonseca said to him concerning the Venezuelan grant to Belize of US $20 million dollars; and how US $10 million of this sum was used to pay off the Government of Belize’s guarantee of Universal Health Services (UHS) loan with the Belize Bank; and the other US $10 million dollars would be used for housing and the Marion Jones Sporting Complex: and how, according to the claimant’s understanding, the Venezuelan authorities gave their blessing to this and that only US $10 million would be publicly declared.” The CJ summarized that Mr. Barrow had queried this, “because the same Venezuelan authorities who had let the new Belize Government know of the full amount of the Venezuelan grant as to US $20 million dollars were asking for proof that it had been spent on housing.”
And in regards to CEO Wallace’s statement, Conteh stated:”Ms. Wallace’s statement essentially confirmed the audience and stated, among other things, that the claimant told the Prime Minister (Mr. Barrow) what had taken place and that primarily, he, (the claimant), wanted the Prime Minister to know that the US $10 million dollars did not go into anyone’s pocket and he explained that he (the claimant) had made a decision that the money would be used to pay off the UHS’ debt with the Belize Bank which the Government had guaranteed.”
After outlining his reasoning, Conteh finally declared: “I accordingly order that the defendant’s committal of the claimant to stand trial for the offence of theft be quashed, and it is hereby declared that it is to be quashed. I order and direct, pursuant to Order 56 rule 14(2)(a), that the proceedings founded on that committal order be brought up to this Court to be quashed.”
Following the reading of the judgment, Musa, who was surrounded by supporters, including the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Johnny Briceño, told reporters that from the beginning this was a political prosecution.
The acting Director of Public Prosecution, Cheryl-Lynn Branker-Taitt, told reporters that she has twenty-one days to appeal the decision of Chief Justice, and that she intends to do just that.
But for now, the case against Hon. Said Musa is over, unless the DPP sticks to her guns and files an appeal with the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
Musa was defended by Senior Counsel Edwin Flowers, who was assisted by Lisa Shoman, Anthony Sylvestre, Kareem Musa and Kevin Arthurs.