Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh has reserved his decision to a date to be announced in the court proceeding for judicial review of magistrate Earl Jones’ decision to commit former prime minister Said Musa to stand trial for theft of US $10 million.

Former P.M. Said Musa

They argued that magistrate Jones wrongly assumed that he had jurisdiction over the offence and that he based his decision on evidence that did not support the elements of theft and on inadmissible evidence.

They also submitted that the presiding magistrate acted irrationally and unreasonably when he committed Musa and, discharged a similar offence against former Housing Minister Ralph Fonseca, even though the evidence against both men were the same.

They have asked the Chief Justice to quash Jones’ committal order. Magistrate Jones was represented in the matter by the Director of Public Prosecutions herself, Cheryl-Lynn Branker Taitt.

The DPP spent most of Tuesday making legal arguments, that her client did have jurisdiction because part of the offence, that is, making the decision to use the Venezuelan funds to settle the Universal Health Services debt, was taken in Belize.

She told the court that it was Musa who sent former Chief Executive Officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Amalia Mai to Caracas to complete the agreement.

Branker Taitt also contended that Musa misrepresented exactly which debt was being repaid.

In her legal arguments, the DPP said her interpretation of a letter written by Musa to Venezuela’s officials only spoke of using the money for housing and reconstruction efforts, not UHS.

She maintained that if the transaction was above board, the ten million dollars in question would have been handled as stipulated in the Finance and Audit Reform Act.

The controversy over the use of the Venezuelan funds emerged shortly after the February 7th 2008 elections. Musa made a televised statement shortly thereafter, explaining his actions to the nation.

He and then Minister of Home Affairs and Housing Ralph Fonseca met with the newly elected Prime Minister Dean Barrow and his Chief Executive Officer Audrey Wallace.

Musa was subsequently charged on December 4th on the strength of statements made by Barrow and Wallace, the DPP noted.

During the court proceeding this week, much was made of a purported statement by Amalia Mai, which the CJ described as the lynch pin of Jones’ decision.

Musa’s attorneys, before even addressing the substance of the statement, insist that Mai’s deposition was not taken in strict conformity with the law.

His lead attorney argued that there is nothing on the record to show that Mai’s statement was read back to her and declared to be her words.

He said there is no proof of her signature and that even the documents attached to the statement were not properly tendered and exhibited.

These “irregularities” Flowers says, make the statement inadmissible.

The CJ himself confessed to being troubled by the appearance of the absence of the requirements and told Flowers, “that is your weightiest ground...if you succeed there that would be the end of the story.”

In responding to the CJ’s concerns, the DPP maintained that to her mind the relevant sections of the law governing depositions had been complied with.

She says that Mai’s statement was taken in the manner it was because Mai was an unwilling but material witness. According to her, a summons was issued for Mai but following conversations with Mai’s attorney, an arrangement was made that Mai show up at a pre-set time.

The CJ contended that private arrangements should not stand, the summons should have been served because there is no record of Mai’s unwillingness to appear in court and face the accused.

Musa claimed that on December 23rd 2007, he wrote to Venezuela’s Vice Minister of Finance stating what he believed to be the understanding agreed to between himself and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, specifically that nine million of a twenty million dollars grant was to be used for housing, one million for the Marion Jones sports facility and ten million for debt repayment.

That letter also contained details for wire transfers for both the Government’s account in New York and the Belize Bank’s account in London.

Musa insists that the letter was a request, not instructions, and that he did nothing wrong.

He argued that the Venezuelans could have denied that “request” at any time. He says he subsequently authorized Mai to sign a poverty alleviation agreement, which was to have included the UHS debt.

Mai’s evidence states that when she arrived in Caracas, the Venezuelan authorities handed her an agreement that did not speak to debt repayment. Mai claims to have been “surprised” by the new agreement and called then Housing Minister Fonseca. Following several phone calls, Mai signed the new agreement.

Musa claims Mai breached her authority. The former PM says Mai was never authorized to, as she says in her statement, “negotiate” with the Venezuelans and sign a different agreement. Additionally, Musa points out, Mai wrote to the Venezuelans giving them wiring instructions for the transfers.

Musa went so far as to say that former CEO Mai did not even have any contact with him after returning to Belize. It was also stated in court that Mai did not bring home a copy of what she had signed because the Venezuelan Vice Minister was not available to sign when she did.

The DPP however insists the agreement Mai signed means the Musa administration broke a contractual obligation, and did not disclose the use of the ten million dollars until well after the fact.

Mai, says DPP Branker Taitt, was an innocent player. But Musa contends that he told the Venezuelans before the grant even existed, that the money was to be used to settle a debt and that it was the Venezuelans themselves that had wired the money to the Belize Bank account.

The judicial review is not a criminal proceeding and is not to decide Musa’s guilt or innocence, but rather, only to decide if the Magistrate’s decision was proper.

The Chief Justice can either order that Jones’ committal order be quashed or he can order a new inquiry.