Commissioner Richard Cheltenham Suffers A Defeat in Briefcase Inquiry

Tillman Thomas and legal team

The written report of the Richard Cheltenham Commission of Inquiry into alleged bribery payments accepted by Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell in June 2000 from imprisoned fraudster, Eric Resteiner will be challenged in court.

This was made known by Barbadian Attorney, Elliott D. Mottley, QC at the commencement of the civil appeal hearing filed by Cheltenham before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court to reverse the decision of Justice Davidson Baptiste to quash an order from the Commissioner that was made on June 14, 2005.

That order prevented Leader of the Opposition, Tillman Thomas of the main opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) from cross-examining witnesses that appeared before the infamous "Briefcase Inquiry".

In a brief hearing, the Justices of Appeal dismissed the appeal that was filed on behalf of Cheltenham. High court judge, Justice Davidson Baptiste had earlier ruled that Commissioner Cheltenham misinterpreted and misapplied section 18 of the Commission of Inquiry Act.

It was under section 18 of the Commission of Inquiry Act that the Leader of the Opposition had applied for standing in the inquiry. Defense attorney Mottley informed the appeal court that was being presided over by Justices Barrow, Rawlins and Ola Mae Edwards that the conduct of the sole Commissioner throughout the inquiry was reprehensible.

He said the manner in which the commission came to an abrupt end on August 21 without any of the main witnesses being called to give evidence will be challenged at the appropriate time. Mottley referred to the scant courtesy that was paid to Her Majesty's Parliamentary Opposition by Commissioner Cheltenham before the inquiry came to an abrupt end.

He noted that Thomas received no service of notice informing him about the resumption of the inquiry after almost a two-year break dye to legal challenges. He pointed out that the Opposition Leader only heard of the resumption via the radio, and that at that time he (Mottley) was in Canada engaged in other matters.

Cheltenham's written report of his findings from the inquiry is expected to be submitted shortly to Governor General, Sir Daniel Williams. In light of the abrupt conclusion of the inquiry and the timing of having the report submitted to Sir Daniel, Mottley described the appeal filed by Cheltenham in the case before the Court of Appeal as purely an academic exercise.

In reaction to the court's decision to dismiss the appeal, Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye, attorney for the Commission, expressed concern that the appellant was not able to have his case heard by the Justices. However, local attorney Ruggles Ferguson who assisted Mottley said it was clear to them that the appeal was academic.

According to Ferguson, the ruling by the judges of the appeal court confirms what they said to the commission on August 21 that if the proceedings take place then in effect the appeal is being abandoned.

Ferguson recalled that the Opposition Leader got his judgement in hand since March 2006, but Commissioner Cheltenham failed to consider the Leader of the Opposition's application to be properly represented in the inquiry with the full powers to examine and cross examine witnesses on resumption. He pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition is recognised by the Grenada Constitution and as such has the right to seek the public's interest.

"They (Cheltenham and Ramsahoye) chose to pursue several technicalities in the matter, thereby delaying the commission themselves," he said. Ferguson indicated that whatever ruling the Justices would have made in the Cheltenham appeal case it could not affect the commission in any way.

The Opposition Leader who was present at the court said he was fully justified by the appeal court's decision to have the matter dismissed. Thomas continues to maintain that he had a legal right to be represented at the inquiry.

"I am not surprised about what happened here today, as was said from the time that the commission was concluded, in a sense the Commissioner had abandoned his appeal," he said. Thomas reiterated his call for good governance and transparency in Grenada by Mitchell's ruling New National Party (NNP) regime.

"I really believed we should (have been) given an opportunity to ask questions to all those who came before the inquiry to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in whatever we are doing in Grenada," he remarked. The Opposition Leader said he still maintains that the opportunity should have been given for the three U.S-based witnesses - Resteiner, Timothy Bass and David Marchant - to give evidence in the Cheltenham Inquiry.  

The NDC boss accused Attorney General Elvin Nimrod of frustrating the process by not assisting the Commission of Inquiry under the Mutual Assistance Treaty to obtain the much-talked about videotape depicting the alleged money transaction from Resteiner to Dr. Mitchell.

It is alleged that Prime Minister Mitchell collected US $500,000.00 from Resteiner at his (Resteiner's) private residence in St. Moritz, Switzerland in exchange for a diplomatic posting - a charge consistently denied by the Grenadian leader.

DR. Mitchell admitted visiting the premises but collected "approximately US$15, 000" as reimbursement payment to cover the cost of his delegation that was on a trade mission to several European capitals and Kuwait.