Benschop is jointly charged with Phillip Bynoe and particulars of the capital offence said the two conspired with others to forcibly and unlawfully enter Office of the President (OP) compound in Georgetown and were present and encouraged others, by word and conduct, to storm the premises on July 3, 2002.

The pre-trial proceedings were prolonged after the magistrate cancelled a committal order he had previously made to allow the Defence to lead witnesses and hear more legal arguments by the lawyers involved.

The Defence called three witnesses, Assistant Commissioner of Police Leon Trim, Clerk of Court Suruj Singh and Charles Smith, one of 21 persons accused of riotous behaviour at OP, also on July 3, 2002.

Following earlier submissions by attorney-at-law Mr. Basil Williams, his associate, Mr. Mortimer Coddette submitted yesterday that, according to Trim’s testimony, the charge resulted from his receipt of certain information.

However, the Prosecution failed to lead evidence about it and claimed privilege on Trim’s behalf when the witness was asked about the subject matter of the charge.

Special Prosecutor Sanjeev Datadin said he would rely on arguments already presented at the close of his case and he recalled that the magistrate expressed the opinion before that a sufficient case had been made out for a jury trial.

Datadin said all the magistrate now has to consider is what happened after that December 2 conclusion, as none of the Defence witnesses affected the case for the Prosecution in any material way.

Datadin contended that Smith corroborated the case for the Prosecution when he said he joined the protest march in Vlissengen Road, also in Georgetown to OP and that the marchers entered the place by pushing open the western gate.

Datadin said that was valid evidence because the other protesters were not employees of OP nor were they invited there.

He said, contrary to the Defence claim, the charge was lawfully laid by the Director of Public Prosecutions and, if that were not so, the DPP had the legal right to intervene and take over the proceedings or withdraw the matter.

Datadin said the obligation of the Prosecution, in relation to intention and existence of overt acts, has been clearly discharged under the treason law.

He declared there is absolutely nothing, by way of exhibit or evidence since December 2, which puts in doubt any aspect of the Prosecution’s case and which, in turn, could lead the magistrate to find, in fact, that a prima facie case is not made out through a sufficiency of evidence.