Questions on 'Roger Khan saga'-- An editorial viewpoint
By Rickey Singh
Guyana Chronicle
December 3, 2006
IN WHAT is viewed as the "Roger Khan saga" involving allegations of narco-trafficking, execution plots, his forcible and secretive entry into the U.S. from Trinidad and Tobago to face trial for "conspiring to export cocaine" into that country, it is reasonable for even those with no sympathies for the Guyanese businessman, to ask what's really going on?
The question is not intended to side either with Khan, his United States accusers, or those who first imprisoned him in Suriname on sensational allegations, including murder plots, only to suddenly deport him on a mere "illegal entry" charge, and then mysteriously send him under police guard to Trinidad and Tobago from where he was flown to the U.S. against his will.
According to public perception, a businessman like Khan, who at 34 is a very wealthy owner of extensive business interests, could well be involved in illegal activities such as drug trafficking. But public perception is not evidence for a court of law, any more than even the 'perception index' of the reputed Transparency International.
If public perception were to be substituted for due process, then some other "business" people, as well as some politicians, customs, immigration and crime-investigating police officials could well be behind bars for their questionable assets.
Basically, those questioning what's really going on in the case of Roger Khan would wish to ascertain whether there have been denials of due process by both Surinamese and subsequently United States authorities. Or, to put it differently, whether laws have been intentionally broken under the pretext of upholding the rule of law?
If Khan did the crime he must certainly serve the time. But that requires transparent, unbiased and competent investigation and, most decidedly, a fair trial -- in or out of Guyana. That decisive moment has not yet been reached.
Even the incriminating claims against him in the last U.S. State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report has been found to be flawed in relation, for instance, to a concession as claimed to have been granted him by the Guyana Forestry Commission -- if we are to be guided by the official denial that followed the publication of that report..
However, two recent developments in Trinidad and Tobago -- from where Khan was secretly flown off to the U.S., following his sudden release from prison in Suriname after being detained, along with his three bodyguards in June, have deepened interest in this highly controversial case.
First, as reported in the local and regional media last month, Khan's lawyers were successful in securing the ruling by a High Court Judge to permit a judicial review of the proceedings that had resulted in their client's removal, against his will, from Trinidad and Tobago to the U.S.
The ruling allowed Khan to "challenge and impugn" the decisions of two officials of the Trinidad and Tobago government, namely immigration officer Stephen Sookram, and lawyer David West of the Attorney General's office. Khan's lawyers had identified them as having been involved in the controversial arrangements to have him flown to the U.S.
Secondly, came a surprising intervention by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey Henderson, to have the charges brought against Sookram and Best withdrawn.
By last week, I was informed, Khan's lawyers were in the process of applying to the Trinidad and Tobago High Court for a review of the DPP's action to determine whether his "discretion" in the matter involving their client, was "properly exercised".
When I first reported earlier this year in this newspaper on "Uncle Sam's Kidnapping of Khan", as published on July 2, one U.S. diplomat was to remark in another newspaper that perhaps it may have resulted from "too much reading of spy novels".
That was certainly no denial. Subsequent events, including disclosures by the Surinamese authorities, were to confirm that Roger Khan could only have been flown to the U.S. against his will as the government in Paramaribo had admitted deporting him to Guyana via Trinidad and Tobago.
Why Suriname did not deport Khan directly to Guyana in the straightforward manner as recently done for his three bodyguards is another matter. Last Friday, all three of the "bodyguards" walked free after pleading guilty in the Georgetown Magistrates Court to having illegally departed this country for Suriname.
Of even greater significance is why was Khan simply deported for being an "illegal alien" in Suriname when, following his dramatic capture and incarceration and waiting for his day in court, he was accused by Justice Minister and former Police Commissioner, Chandrikhapersad Santokhi of having planned to "assassinate" a number of unnamed public officials in that country.
NO EVIDENCE is known to have been advanced then or even right up to the time of Khan's controversial deportation from Suriname and kidnapping into the U.S.
In any other CARICOM jurisdiction legal proceedings would certainly have been instituted against Justice Minister Santokhi who, according to media reports, had been in regular contact with collaborators in the Guyana Police Force before and during Khan’s imprisonment in Suriname.
The case becomes even more intriguing when it is realised that having originally claimed that there was "sufficient evidence to secure a grand jury indictment" against Khan for allegedly exporting cocaine into the U.S. -- the world's biggest consumer of illegal drugs -- his American prosecutors kept requesting and obtaining court permission for more time to "gather appropriate evidence..."
Whatever happened to the "sufficient evidence" that led to the grand jury indictment? As I recall, there have already been three such adjournments, and a "trial" is not now expected before March next year. That would be some nine months after Khan was forcibly taken into the U.S. following his sudden, controversial "deportation" of convenience from Suriname.
Consequently, the recurring question: What's really going on by law enforcement and judicial authorities in the case of Roger Khan?