Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, has criticised legal arguments advanced on behalf of Azruddin Mohamed, claiming that attempts to justify the alleged unauthorised acquisition of state surveillance footage are contributing to his remand.
Speaking during his weekly programme, Issues in the News, Nandlall challenged what he described as the defence’s position that Mohamed’s entitlement to evidence justified the alleged means of obtaining the recordings.
“Your lawyers are helping you to go on remand because the lawyers now are justifying it in an affidavit form,” Nandlall said.
The Attorney General said his criticism was based on affidavits and arguments he had read in connection with proceedings before the High Court.
Nandlall acknowledged that people charged with criminal offences are entitled to material needed to prepare their defence. He also recognised the prosecution’s duty to disclose relevant evidence.
However, he argued that those rights do not authorise a defendant to pay someone to improperly extract recordings from the state’s surveillance system.
“There is no need for anyone to arrogate onto themselves the belief that they must go and steal or get someone to steal the evidence and then say that they are entitled to it as a matter of law,” he stated.
Nandlall said defendants who encounter difficulties obtaining evidence should seek orders through the courts.
Recounting a case in which he represented former public officials, he said he had applied to the High Court after the prosecution failed to provide a forensic audit report sought by the defence. According to his account, the proceedings were eventually permanently stayed after an adequate copy was not supplied.
He presented that experience as an example of how disputes over access to evidence should be handled.
The Attorney General also argued that unauthorised access to surveillance recordings could compromise citizens’ privacy, national security and the integrity of criminal proceedings.
He alleged that footage at the centre of the controversy had been combined from different cameras and said experts were examining the images. No findings from that examination were presented during the programme.
Nandlall said the courts would determine how the defence’s arguments should be treated.
