Presidential guard testifies
Magistrate warns Benschop about contempt
Stabroek News
October 9, 2002
A Presidential Guard was the fifth witness for the state yesterday when the Preliminary Inquiry into the charges of treason against Phillip Bynoe and Mark Benschop continued.
Constable Surendra Hanceram attached to the Body Protection Unit delivered his testimony and was cross-examined by lead counsel for Benschop's defence, Basil Williams, during a nearly four-and-a-half-hour long session.
But an angry outburst by Benschop threatened to halt proceedings as Hanceram began his testimony. Agitated by what he described as the lies Hanceram had been telling, Benschop shouted to him "You should die! You should die right there in the witness box!" Presiding Magistrate Chandra Sohan declared that he was not going to tolerate such behaviour, Benschop was placated by the members of his defence team. The magistrate later threatened to cite Benschop for contempt after another outburst at the close of yesterday's proceedings as Benschop said everyone was politically corrupt.
Attorneys Anil Mohabir Nandalall and Darshan Ramdhani joined the prosecution led by Special Prosecutor for the DPP Sanjeev Datadin on Monday.
Both the magistrate and the defence were served yesterday morning with a letter from Deputy Director of the DPP, Roxanne George, stating that both men had been appointed as associates of Datadin.
Williams challenged the men's participation since he contended that while they had been identified as Datadin's associates they did not have the necessary fiat from the DPP and this could only be issued by him. He said the men had no locus standi in the matter and thus were mere associates.
Datadin however disputed this assertion saying that it was unfounded in law. He said it was a norm for the appointment to be one of an associate since he had already been identified as leading the prosecution.
Considering their arguments, the magistrate held that as he understood it, the fiat issued to Datadin by the DPP allowed him to assume the full conduct of the prosecution, meaning he could employ the services of others for the prosecution.
There was still some dispute afterwards as another member of Benschop's defence, Mortimer Coddette, said while the DPP, who is constitutionally appointed, could delegate authority, this could not be further delegated to others.
As the hearing continued the defence objected to what they described as the way in which the prosecution was leading the witness in the delivery of his evidence-in-chief as well as the admission of what they called opinion testimony. They further objected during cross-examination when it was perceived that the prosecution had been prompting the witness. Datadin was warned by the magistrate to desist from this. Meanwhile the prosecution objected to what they described as the badgering of the witness by the defence during cross-examination. Ramdhani objected to questions being asked by Williams which he said "were based on unfair premises designed to trick the witness." Williams however argued that he had free rein during the cross-examination and could not be restricted by the prosecution.
Earlier, the defence asked the magistrate whether he had received communication from either the Chancellor or Chief Justice directing him to work continuously throughout the entire week. The magistrate said he had received no such instructions. The inquiry is to continue today.