Watson accuses prosecutor of hidden conflict

(CNS): Canover Watson has filed a formal complaint against the crown lawyer who was part of the team that prosecuted him and Bruce Blake in the CONCACAF football fraud case. Watson, a former businessman, was convicted in 2022 and jailed last year for a long list of offences. But he claims the case was politically motivated and Toyin Salako was conflicted. While she was prosecuting him, she was also leading Cayman’s efforts to get off the FATF grey list, a fact she didn’t disclose at the time of trial or sentencing.

Writing on Watson’s behalf, his legal team claimed that Salako, a public prosecutor, had a dual role at the time of Watson’s trial: as prosecuting crown counsel and at the centre of the Cayman Islands’ desperate efforts to get off the infamous FATF grey list. Watson argued that officials here considered a successful prosecution against him and a lengthy jail term to be fundamental to persuading the FATF that this jurisdiction is actively prosecuting and appropriately sanctioning money laundering offences.

“In October 2022, FATF found the Cayman Islands significantly behind on compliance, heightening political pressure to impose ‘dissuasive and effective sanctions’,” the complaint states, pointing out that at this “pivotal moment”, Salako was arguing for a lengthy sentence, clearly influenced by her extraneous interest in demonstrating the Cayman Islands’ compliance with FATF’s requirements, particularly regarding money laundering prosecutions.

But Watson said Salako never declared this second role she was playing, even at the point of sentencing.

Watson still maintains his innocence in the case, where no official complaint was ever made by CONCACAF, which the crown said was defrauded to the tune of over $1.5 million. He believes that he was deliberately targeted due to Cayman’s pressing need to offer up at least one case that could help it get past a long-standing problem of failing to successfully prosecute transnational corruption and financial crime or properly sanction individuals in the cases it does take on.

In official letter of complaint, which has been sent to the governor’s office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Bar Standards Board of England and Wales, as well as numerous local senior officials, Watson raises serious ethical concerns about Salako’s conflict of interest, which could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.

Watson said Salako’s “active advocacy for a severe sentence, without disclosing her FATF-related objectives, violated principles of impartiality and transparency critical to fair trials”. He contended that the case against him was flawed because the lawyer was tasked with prosecuting him to the fullest extent while simultaneously needing to present his conviction as proof of Cayman’s compliance with FATF standards.

Watson said his prosecution was less about justice and more about demonstrating Cayman’s commitment to FATF compliance at a critical time, leveraging his case to bolster the jurisdiction’s standing and secure removal from the grey list.

CNS reached out to Salako for comment, and she referred us to the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in this case. In it, the court cut Watson’s sentence from eight to seven years but upheld his conviction and effectively dismissed the arguments about Salako that had formed a major part of the appeal.

Watson’s legal team raised concerns that their client had been sacrificed for the sake of Cayman’s removal from the grey list and the government had publicly admitted that the case was the lynchpin in that goal. The conflict had formed the first ground of his appeal.

However, the higher court did not consider the allegation sufficient to render the conviction unsafe. In their ruling, the panel said that the charges against Watson and Blake had been settled before Salako took over as junior counsel and after a first trial was terminated due to problems with disclosure.

The senior judges said that there “were clear reasons to prosecute Canover Watson for serious dishonesty, as any objective review of the evidence makes plain. There was a clear case for him to answer.” In the ruling delivered last month, they went on to say that there was a strong public interest in prosecuting him.

“There is nothing to suggest that the decision to prosecute was taken for political reasons or as a result of other influence or pressure,” the ruling states. They also found that the case did not depend upon Salako as she had worked with independent leading counsel from London, who was involved from its outset.

“The aim of assisting the Cayman Islands to achieve FATF compliance was not one which gave rise to a conflict of interest. It was a laudatory aim. The proper investigation and prosecution of money laundering and financial crime in the Cayman Islands is in the interests of justice. To seek to advance such an aim is in the interests of justice,” the court found, adding that disclosure on Salako’s part was not required.

However, Watson has argued that the appeal court’s dismissal of his claims of political pressure failed to examine whether compliance-related motivations had influenced prosecutorial decision-making.

“The characterisation of Ms Salako’s FATF role as ‘laudatory’ ignored its impact on her prosecutorial independence. Her active advocacy for a severe sentence, without disclosing her FATF-related objectives, violated principles of impartiality and transparency critical to fair trials,” Watson has said.

According to the complaint, Watson is seeking an investigation into Salako and what he contends is misconduct. He said her actions erode public trust in prosecutorial independence and jeopardise the credibility of the legal system.

“To restore public confidence and prevent further erosion of trust, a thorough investigation into Ms Salako’s conduct is imperative,” Watson has said. “Only through accountability and adherence to ethical standards can the integrity of the justice system be safeguarded.”

---