by Special Correspondent
                             
The article, "Grenada P M Sued by Fraud Victims", published on Wednesday,  June 13 in the financial newsletter, "OffshoreAlert" of Miami USA, introduces a  new twist to the Briefcase Affair and opens the door to a series of potential issues that could seriously impact Grenada's political and financial  future.

Let us, from the beginning, understand, quite clearly, that the suit is simply an allegation that the PM was a recipient of ill-gotten wealth from someone found guilty of having fraudulently relieved others of their money.

According to our laws, the PM is innocent until proven guilty, and this has to be done by the accusers on a preponderance of  the evidence they bring before the Court.

There is, however, one element in the suit the accusers do not have to prove. That is the embarrassment the world-wide exposure of this sordid affair brings on Grenada. The mere fact that a Prime Minister is accused of receiving bribes (and from a fraudster at that) is enormously embarrassing to the nation he leads.

What is worse, is that the PM himself admits receiving money at the private home of one now found guilty of fraud. To what use the money was put and the sum received are irrelevant. Prime Ministers ought not to stoop so low.    

Whatever the outcome of the suit, the PM's integrity and credibility are seriously wounded. He will, forever, be remembered as someone who hob knobbed with fraudsters and conmen. His relationship with non-Grenadians will always provoke skepticism. The suit raises a host of important legal issues that will impact Grenada for sometime.

The PM will obviously retain Counsel to defend him at the trial. Who pays the lawyers that will be engaged? The monies he received were not for the country's use and or benefit. In fact, he admits to that: "It's me damn money. So what you all worried about?", he, boldly, declared.

That being the case, would it be reasonable to expect Grenadians to pay (by way of their taxes) for his defence? If, perchance, the Court finds him liable, the matter of restitution becomes relevant. The Court will determine the sum that must be paid to the plaintiff. It is then we  will know whether it was "approximately US$15,000" (the PM's figure) or $1m (the claimant's allegation) or $500,000 as the local Commissioner was called upon to investigate.

Who makes restitution; the PM or the Grenada public? It is not too early for this question to engage the minds of Grenada's  lawyers . Another element that the suit will impact must be the dormant Commission of Inquiry. This, presumably, will  be postponed indefinitely, pending the outcome of the Court's findings.

There is little doubt that the most important piece of evidence - the incriminating tape - will surface in New York. We recall that there are strenuous efforts being made to ensure that that piece of evidence does not see the light of day.

The Offshore Alert, however, reports  that Resteiner has shown  "prosecutors what was said to be the video recording of his alleged bribe to Mitchell in a plea for leniency". It would be very amusing for the local Commission to exonerate the PM while the District Court of New York finds him liable.

There is, also, the tangential issue of whether or not charges of perjury should, or should not, be brought against the witnesses  --the PM's  team that accompanied him--  at the now famous meeting at that private  home in Switzerland, should the Court find the PM liable.
Their evidence to the Commission did not reveal the whole truth, as they swore to tell. Any action that may be contemplated must not give the impression of being       vindictive but should be seen as a deterrent to public officers who are prepared to close their eyes or prostitute themselves in defending wrong doings by their political bosses.  

The complaint also reveals a more disturbing bit of information - that there were in fact two payments of $500,000 each made to our PM. Not, in any case to be cynical, one cannot fail to observe how lucrative politics must be.

"It is me damn money" means that the PM's bank account must be a healthy one - $500,000US is not chicken feed. All we can hope for, if that allegation proves true, is that Grenada is not held liable for restitution. If we are, it would mean that the guilty party will still be enriched at the expense of the public.

The brew thickens and the pot boils over. Let's hope, for Grenada's sake, that what comes out in that Court battle does not doom us from ever emerging from "darkness into light."