?Lawyers representing the Government of Djibouti have apologised to the High Court in the UK after it transpired that the court was misled in a matter involving prominent Djiboutian businessman Abdourahman Boreh.
The businessman?s assets were frozen worldwide in what eventually turned out to be an unsafe conviction on terrorism charges in Djibouti.
The lawyers also extended apologies to Mr. Boreh who is challenging the freezing order.
Mr. Boreh, a former confidant of President Ismail Omar Guelleh, was charged in his absence with terrorism offences following a grenade explosion in a supermarket in Djibouti, which was carried out on March 5, 2009 by an organisation that had been engaged in subversive activities against the government.
The case against Mr. Boreh hinged on two telephone conversations he had had with two brothers who said an ?act? had been ?completed? in Djibouti.
As a result, Mr. Boreh was found guilty and the government of Djibouti had sought to extradite him from Dubai.
But Mr. Boreh, who had by then fallen out with President Guelleh, said that the charge was politically motivated.
Nevertheless, the government of Djibouti went ahead on September 11, 2013 and applied to the Commercial Court, a sub-division of the Queen?s Bench of the High Court of Justice in London for Mr. Boreh?s assets to be frozen.
The government instructed a UK firm of solicitors, Gibson, Dunn and Crotcher, which handed the matter to Peter Gray, working in the firm?s Dubai office.
The freezing order was granted by Mr. Justice Flaux after legal arguments by lawyers retained by Gibson Dunn, and lawyers instructed by Byrne and Partners, representing Mr. Boreh.
However, things took a different turn in November last year when the matter came up again before Mr Justice Flaux who discovered that he had been misled about the date of the conversations between Mr. Boreh and the brothers, which the government claimed had taken place on March 5, 2009.
It turned out that the conversations took place on March 4, before the grenade attack, and therefore could not possibly relate to the terrorist incident ? thus making the conviction of Mr Boreh and others unsafe. Indeed, the coded discussions were referring to the distribution of anti-government leaflets in Djibouti.
In the High Court this week, the arguments were focused on whether Mr. Gray knew in September 2013 that the transcripts of the telephone conversations were false.
Lord Falconer, representing the government of Djibouti and addressing Mr Justice Flaux, said: ?The Republic of Djibouti apologises to this court and to Mr Boreh that this court was misled at the hearing of10 and 11 September 2013; secondly that the misleading was not corrected at the first opportunity.
?Thirdly that when the matter was raised a year later in September 2014 by Messrs Byrne & Partners, Mr Gray was not open about the error, which had occurred, did not refer the matter straight back to the court so that the court was fully in the position and, when the matter was referred back to the court, was not open and honest in relation to what was said to the court.
?Fourthly, that in mainly lawyers? letters and meetings around the world, the Republic of Djibouti apologises for the fact that reliance was placed on from both your Lordship?s judgement and from the transcript of the hearing of 10 and 11 September, which had been based on the misleading information put before the court for the hearing of 10 and 11 September, and moreover, that on a number of occasions there was a misstating of the evidence available in Djibouti,? Lord Falconer added.
After the unsafe conviction, the Djibouti government had asked Interpol to place Mr. Boreh under a Red Notice for his extradition to Djibouti.
Lord Falconer said that Djibouti now understood ?the seriousness of what had occurred in this case, and, My Lord, they are determined to seek to regain the trust of this court?.
He went on: ?My Lord, they have sought to gain publicity for the error which has occurred in the misleading of the court, and they undertake to do all they can to get the Red Notice removed from Interpol. Steps have now been undertaken to arrange for a meeting in Lyon, which is the headquarters for Interpol worldwide, in order to get the Red Notice discharged.?
However, Lord Falconer asked for the order to freeze Mr. Boreh?s assets, put at $100 million, to remain, arguing: ?The main responsibility for the misleading of the court lies on the shoulders of Peter Gray. Whilst the court will not normally distinguish between a client and its lawyers, where the court can see that the error was largely the result of the conduct of the lawyer, that is a factor which weighs in the balance against discharge.?
Lord Falconer argued that the terrorism case against Boreh ?was a comparatively small part of evidence before the court? and that the claimants did not rely on this. But Mr Justice Flaux pointed out that it was. He added: ?In a sense, once the point had been raised by the court, it was relied upon by Mr Qureshi [representing the Djibouti government] when there was debate between Mr. Qureshi and myself??
There were apologies also from Gibson Dunn, whose lawyer, Timothy Dutton, told the court that the firm ?wishes to make it clear now, and before the application is decided, that the firm?s apology extends to the court, to the parties, to Mr Boreh, solicitors and counsel, and indeed to anybody who has been affected by conduct which fell below the standard expected of solicitors?.
He added: ?The firm expects all who work for it to espouse high standards of conduct and to be straightforward in their dealings with others, and in particular in their dealings with the court.?
The hearing continues this week.
GNA
