The recent decision by the Attorney General, Anand Ramlogan to not pursue or appeal any further the United States extradition matter against Messrs Galbaransingh and Ferguson has no doubt raised a lot of questions for the man in the street.
The explanation given by the Attorney General raises many questions to the layperson.
For example, there have been cases before where a crime was committed on Trinidad and Tobago soil and persons were extradited, yet the AG and Honourable Prime Minister used words like “sovereign” in this current matter.
One should note that the Piarco corruption case cannot be compared to a murder case, which is baased mainly on a single act which takes a life and requires physical presence to perform, and hence could not be done in more than one country.
A corruption case can hardly likely be based on a single act requiring singular presence in one country, more so in this case where colluding persons in the US have already pleaded guilty of the charges.
The Attorney General also made mention of the length of time passing; one would wonder how this could be relevant and if so, what is an acceptable time- frame in which to decide to abandon?
One should note that many countries around the world continue to hunt down Nazi war criminals, as well as persons who played secondary roles (such as financial laundering of war money), decades after that world war.
Mention was also made of the money spent so far on legal proceeding after legal proceeding, fought tooth and nail by these men.
One will wonder again if there is a monetary figure when one decides to abandon, and how is that figure decided?
Was any consideration made concerning the actual cost of the project, which was the alleged genesis of these corruption allegations, in deciding that enough legal expenses had been spent? Clearly, if someone steals and legal costs are , then it raises questions on how to efficiently proceed. Was such a comparison done here?
No doubt, much of the population will remember this matter in the future.
