Only this time, said the UNC, "the post-nomination legal action in 2002 is intended to create a diversion from the expose of an unholy alliance between the (Patrick) Manning administration and Abu Bakr's Jamaat-al-Muslimeen".

Former Human Resources Minister, Ganga Singh, a lawyer by profession, speaking on behalf of the UNC "in defence", he said, "of our leader and in the interest of natural justice" recalled:

In 1995, following nominations of candidates, charges were laid against the UNC leader for alleged sexual indecency offences. The intention was to get him to withdraw from the election.

This did not happen. And less than one week after the election which the PNM lost, the charges against Panday were dismissed.

Now in 2002, less than a week after Nomination Day, said the UNC spokesman, three charges "have suddenly been laid against the former Prime Minister under the Public Integrity Act, but with a date for a court hearing fixed way down for November 27.

"Further", said Ganga Singh, who is involved in media briefings, "the offences alleged against Mr. Panday have been made under the old Public Integrity Act and not the revised version of 2000 that was done under the previous UNC administration".

According to him, "because this move against Panday is directly related to the campaign for the October 7 election, those concerned would have been aware, or they should be, that under the old Act of 1987, he (Panday) is not required to disclose assets of his wife and, or children 18 years and under.

"Under the 2000 legislation", Singh added, "it is mandatory to declare assets of self, spouses and children. But the prescribed forms for persons in public life to whom the Act applies, have not been available and, therefore, could not have been used. Now he (Panday) is charged under the old Act".

Questioned about the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the charges filed against Panday and whether he would not have been fully aware of the differences between the 1987 and 2000 laws governing required declaration of assets, the UNC spokesman said:

"The current DPP (Geoffrey Henderson) is relatively new in that post and we would not want to pass any judgement on him.

"But the police may have to answer questions as to whether they are being used in a political manner in a high profile political case", he added.

He said that the UNC was "convinced that having been exposed for its conspiracy with the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen, the PNM has chosen to create a diversion for electoral purposes by moving against Mr. Panday".