The much-anticipated restart of the election fraud trial, involving several high-profile figures, is still pending as Chief Magistrate (ag) Faith McGusty prepares to hear preliminary arguments.
The case, which has been marred by delays and procedural debates, will now be reassessed from scratch, following the decision last week to transfer the trial to Magistrate McGusty.
In a case management hearing held on Wednesday, defense attorney Nigel Hughes argued that the trial must begin anew from the date when the nine accused first appeared in court.
This was prior to the decision made by Magistrate Lerone Daly and two previous magistrates to proceed with 31 of the charges being heard summarily under the Administration of Justice Act.
Hughes contended that, given the change in magistrate, any prior rulings should not be binding on McGusty’s court.
“The decision made by Magistrate Daly cannot be binding on this court, as it was made by a magistrate who no longer has conduct over the case,” Hughes argued.
“We do not believe that the de novo principle requires you to be bound by any decisions made by a previous magistrate.”
Under the legal term “de novo,” which means “from the beginning,” McGusty is tasked with considering the case anew, without regard to prior rulings or findings.
Hughes’ request that the trial begin from the initial appearance of the accused was based on this principle.
In contrast, special prosecutor Latchmie Rahaman had suggested that the trial could restart from the testimonies of two witnesses who had already provided evidence in earlier hearings.
However, lead prosecutor Dharshan Ramdhani explained that in cases like these, it is common for a new magistrate to read the charge, hear pleas, and proceed with the trial as though it were beginning afresh, with no need to hear pleas again.
“This is the usual practice,” Ramdhani said.
“The magistrate reads the charge, a plea is entered, and then the matter is transferred to another magistrate who hears the case in its entirety.”
He stressed that the trial, with the exception of certain preliminary matters, could start over and still ensure a fair process.
However, Hughes pushed back on this, emphasizing that established legal principles should not be disregarded simply because it is customary.
He also requested an additional three weeks to prepare his arguments while noting anticipated allegations of delay.
Magistrate McGusty, not expecting such extensive arguments, indicated that she was ready to restart the trial by November 15.
However, after considering the latest submissions, she acknowledged that the case had already experienced significant delays.
“It seems we are back in the same position,” McGusty remarked, referencing the ongoing setbacks.
At the conclusion of Wednesday’s hearing, McGusty set deadlines for written submissions, to be filed by November 27. A further hearing will be held on December 9, where she will rule on the preliminary matters and set a new date for the restart of the trial.
One key issue still to be addressed is the status of two charges that had previously been considered indictable but were later deemed summarily triable.
Ramdhani has requested that these charges be reinstated as part of the full set of 33 charges against the defendants, arguing that the previous decision was a mistake and should be reviewed.
Hughes, however, disagreed with this approach, noting that the decision to make the charges indictable had already been appealed and reviewed by a higher court. He insisted that it was not within the jurisdiction of the magistrate to revisit this issue at the trial level.
“I will not shut out submissions at this stage,” Magistrate McGusty said in response to the ongoing legal back-and-forth.
Both the defense and prosecution, along with Magistrate McGusty, also made an appeal to the media and public officials to refrain from misrepresenting what occurs in court.
They emphasized the importance of allowing the trial to proceed without unnecessary setbacks due to public statements that could potentially disrupt the legal process.
The trial involves nine defendants, including former government minister Volda Lawrence and former GECOM Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield. The accused are facing charges related to conspiring to defraud voters by manipulating election results during the disputed 2020 general elections.
Key Dates:
- Written Submissions Deadline: November 27
- Hearing Date for Preliminary Matters: December 9
- Potential Restart of Trial: TBA after December 9 ruling
