IN a moment laden with suspense, reminiscent of the landmark ‘glove’ episode, in the OJ Simpson trial, Mukesh Valabhji unveiled yet another inconsistency by the Prosecution, in the ongoing Arms and Ammunition trial at the Supreme Court: contradictory serial numbers on the Dragunov rifle that is purported to have been discovered in the master bedroom of the first and second accused’s residence at Morne Blanc.
Mr Valabhji began laying the foundation for the denouement with a 36 second video footage of the discovery, previously exhibited by a prosecution witness, Kevin Stephenson, a Secret Service Agent, working for the ACCS. In the clip, Stephenson is heard requesting for the serial number of the Dragunov, but the footage stops just before it is read.
Valabhji then proceeds to adduce a pen drive showing a new clip of the moment the serial number is read out by Stephenson as “26254”.
As the Dragunov, now a court exhibit produced by the Prosecution, was unzipped from its rifle bag by Detective Constable Dinan, the courtroom was rife with anticipation.
When the serial number “502169”, is finally revealed, it takes all but a second for the friends and family of the defendants to let out a cathartic sigh of vindication.
Mr Valabhji was resolute in his assertion that this was definite proof that the rifle had been planted in his bedroom and that he had never seen it in his home. Valabhji told the Court that it is now plainly evident that this video is comprised of 3 sections: the part exhibited by Stephenson in the trial last year, the part adduced by the Defence just a few moments ago, and a connecting 20 second clip that appears to have gone missing. He asserted that the Prosecution had not only failed to disclose the new video that had just been viewed in court, but that they have allowed the tampering of the original footage in its entirety.
Valabhji described the actions of the ACCS and the Prosecution as deceitful. “Can they make right their wrongs and produce the entire video”.
Stephenson, it is to be noted, had admitted in his testimony last year, that the SD card containing the original does exist and that he had placed it in the custody of the ACCS exhibit officer, but that he could not recall if it was then turned over to the Attorney General’s Office. This brings into question the role of the ACCS in the Arms and Ammunition Case. Why is a Commission mandated to fight Corruption overreaching, and acting as a custodian of evidence that is only relevant to a case that should be purely under the purview of the Police?
“ACCS is simply not mandated to investigate or to prosecute such offences,” ended Mr. Mukesh Valabhji.
