Court dismisses fraud and conspiracy charges against MP David Patterson

Charges of fraud and conspiracy against former Public Works Minister David Patterson in relation to a feasibility study for the new Demerara River Bridge, were dismissed this morning by the Magistrates’ Court.

Patterson and the former General Manager of the Demerara Harbour Bridge Rawlston Adams were charged for defrauding the Demerara Harbour Bridge Company in relation to a contract that was awarded to a Dutch company to conduct a feasibility study and design for the new Demerara River Bridge.

The charge, which was filed by the Special Organized Crime Unit, (SOCU), alleged that between November 18, 2016 and February 1, 2018 at Georgetown, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Adams conspired with each other and with other persons unknown, to defraud the Harbour Bridge of $162.6 Million, which were funds of the Asphalt Plant Account for the bridge.

Magistrate Leron Daly found that there was insufficient evidence.

Following this morning’s decision of the Court, Mr. Patterson told News Source that the charges were politically motivated.

He said the very feasibility study that the Government said was corrupt and charged him for, was used for the new Demerara Bridge which is currently under construction and by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“The Former Police Legal Advisor, now Chairman of GECOM had advised that there was no case, but of course the Government, politically vindictive still carried through with it. So this morning exactly four years after, Senior Magistrate Leron Daly dismissed the charges and found that there was no agreement to defraud, they were unable to provide any evidence that the state or anyone was defrauded,” Patterson told News Source.

Mr. Patterson said he is prepared to further defend himself should the government move to appeal.

But in the first instance he said the case should not have gone on for so long.

He said the Director Of Public Prosecutions had previously withdrew a charge against another former Minister, when it was found that he was charged on a matter that was a decision of the cabinet.

He explained that this matter was also a cabinet decision and when he wrote the DPP for the charges to be dropped since a precedence was set, there were interventions by the Government to have the case prolonged in the Court.