THE BEAMING smile on the face of former Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi as he was pictured on the steps of the Miami-Dade County Courthouse on Wednesday told a story of celebration and vindication given the historic outcome of the multi-million dollar civil asset forfeiture claim brought by the State linked to the construction of the Piarco Airport terminal building 22 years ago.
But the exuberance of Mr Al-Rawi and all the attorneys representing this country’s interests was a far cry from the sad realities confirmed by the outcome of this case – an outcome which may well prove provisional if it is subject to appeal or overturned.
For the moment, it is a good thing that, at long last, there has been some kind of judicial determination, one way or another, in relation to the Piarco affair.
There has been a battery of court cases and decades of legal wrangling relating to each and every one of them. These matters have not only beleaguered our already overwhelmed courts, they have at times embroiled the highest offices in the land, most recently given the fallout after the dropping of charges against former prime minister Basdeo Panday under whose prime ministerial tenure the project was executed.
It was not Mr Panday, however, who stood accused in Miami, but rather businessman Steve Ferguson, former UNC minister Brian Kuei Tung and US businessman Raul Gutierrez Jr. Some of the defendants did not reply to the case.
It took a jury in the US just two hours to deliberate and come to a decision on a matter that has bedevilled and continues to bedevil local courts for more than two decades. This confirms a great deal about the limits of our criminal justice system, in addition to our politics.
But the fact that the evidence presented to this jury remains unavailable to the people of this country, in whose name the litigation was brought, is also unsatisfactory. Pending court proceedings mean the public is likely to remain in the dark while the politicians crow over these issues.
Meanwhile, what is called “forum shopping,” which is when a litigant cherry picks where they will initiate proceedings regardless of whether there is a connection to the jurisdiction, is a practice generally frowned upon by courts all over the world, but that has never stopped authorities in this country who have repeatedly ceded all hope of local resolution of legal matters to foreign courts like the Privy Council or foreign arbitration bodies.
This latest ruling continues that trend.
Given all of this, some may describe the developments as a pyrrhic victory.
But it may not even be a victory once we begin to tally the extraordinary costs that have been borne by all stakeholders in this sad affair.