Education Ministry - CMU Fraud Trial | Defence wants two senior officials as prosecutors drop 13 witnesses

Two senior public officials are among 13 people who prosecutors no longer intend to call as witnesses in the fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid, defence attorneys have revealed.

Their names are being withheld because the media has been asked not to reveal the names of witnesses in the trial.

They were among more than 90 witnesses listed on the indictment.

However, Linda Wright, the attorney representing Reid, revealed in court on Tuesday that she and the other defence attorneys in the case have been notified of the change by prosecutors.

“We are not relying on the evidence of these persons. That’s what the notice says,” Wright recounted in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

However, the attorney served notice that she wanted the two senior public officials to be made available to give evidence.

Other defence attorneys in the trial, she said, will have to determine whether they have an interest in any of the 13 people.

“Those are the two I know I will definitely need. We will have further discussions with counsel and we will indicate if there is anybody that we are not interested in,” Wright said. “‘Cause I don’t want to hear [that] they can’t find them.”

Senior Parish Court Judge Sanchia Burrell, who is presiding over the trial, noted that it is settled law that the witnesses must be made available even when prosecutors are no longer relying on them.

“I am going to say that all 13 must be made available and we all have to hope and pray that they don’t suddenly become unfindable,” Burrell said.

Wright also complained that the statement of a key prosecution witness was disclosed to the defence by prosecutors four days ago, even though it is dated April 27 this year.

“When I looked at the date on the statement, that’s what floored me. The statement was taken from the 27th [of April, 2026]. What would have prevented the prosecution from serving that statement on us?

“This is not a trial by ambush.”

Further, the attorney took issue with two additional witness statements – dated October 7 and 8 – given by a senior executive at Caribbean Maritime University (CMU).

One of the statements, she said, is one page long while the other has five pages “with how many accounts and new documents uploaded, … purporting to be documents from CMU”.

“This is a CMU witness that impacts several of the accused persons. When are we to take instructions from our clients when we are given these things Friday [October 16 at] 8 p.m.?” Wright complained.

“Now, tell me, M’Lady, if that is not an ambush,” she said, speaking to the judge.

“We can’t tell the prosecution how to present their case, but this is untidy [and] it is wrong,” Wright added.

But prosecutors indicated, in their response, that the additional statements from the CMU official are not new, but make reference to documents that were disclosed at the start of the trial.

“In the statement that [name redacted] gave in 2019, he provided references and tables which spoke to different invoices and payment vouchers when those payments were made. He, however, did not say he handed over those documents. The five-page statement lists the documents and basically provides a breakdown of what the documents were,” a prosecutor explained.

The prosecutor also explained that the late disclosure of the witness statement dated April 27 this year was an “oversight”.

The prosecutor said she acknowledged that defence attorneys need time to take instructions from their clients, but insisted that there is no deliberate effort to thwart that process.

“A number of the new materials that we are now disclosing are materials that recently came to us from the investigators, us having probed certain things that we previously requested. So it is not that we are holding, in the Office of the DPP, any materials which we have refused to disclose,” said the prosecutor, making reference to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The CMU executive began giving evidence on Tuesday after the presiding judge indicated that defence attorneys will be given time to take instructions from their respective clients.

The trial continues today.