Naraja recuses from Villanueva contempt case
The contempt case against Shayne Villanueva, a contractor implicated in the controversial Building Optimism, Opportunities, and Stability Program program, has seen further delays following the recusal of Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja due to a potential conflict of interest.
The bench trial, now reassigned to Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo, has been rescheduled to Jan. 27, 2025.
On Friday, Nov. 15, Naraja stepped away from the case, listing concerns over impartiality after reviewing new exhibits presented by Villanueva’s defense team. The exhibit included photographs of a sign endorsing Rep. Ralph Naraja Yumul (Ind-Saipan), a key witness in the case and Naraja’s nephew.
Naraja stated in his recusal order, “A reasonable person, fully informed of the facts, might question my impartiality.” He emphasized that the sign, located near his property but on public land, was not placed with his consent. However, he acknowledged its proximity could create the appearance of bias.
Villanueva’s attorney, Keith Chambers, had previously requested Naraja’s recusal, arguing that the judge’s perceived political endorsement of Yumul compromised the integrity of the proceedings. Assistant attorney general James Kingman, representing the government, opposed the motion, but Naraja ultimately removed himself from the case.
The case stems from Villanueva’s refusal to answer questions during a March 2024 House hearing on BOOST, a $17-million federally funded program aimed at providing community assistance. Villanueva, owner of Roil Soil Marketing, was contracted to help implement BOOST under the administration of former Governor Ralph DLG Torres.
Villanueva invoked his Fifth Amendment right during the hearing, leading the House special committee, chaired by Yumul, to hold him in contempt. His defense has since raised questions about the committee’s jurisdiction and the relevance of its inquiries.
During a status conference on Monday, Nov. 18, Govendo addressed several motions and rescheduled the trial to ensure all pending issues are resolved beforehand. Villanueva appeared with his attorneys, Chambers and Joaquin Torres, while Kingman represented the government.
Key arguments centered on a motion by the defense to subpoena Kingman as a witness and disqualify him from the case due to a potential conflict of interest. Chambers argued that Kingman’s prior communications with Villanueva’s counsel regarding potential criminal charges against Villanueva could impact his client’s defense.
Kingman opposed the motion, stating in his opposition “A key legal problem with this proposed strategy comes in the second clause: ‘Through Mr. Villanueva’s counsel.’ If the strategy is to somehow put forward the mental condition of the defendant at the alleged time, that can be done either through inference by action or through the testimony of the only person that knows. If it is through inference based on a conversation, it would need to be the principles of that conversation.” Kingman said that he has communicated with the lawyer for the defendant, and that that is not communicating with Villanueva.
Kingman added that the defendant also claims to want him to be disqualified because defendant intends to introduce exhibits that were written statements by Kingman. “The proposed strategy relies on privileged attorney-attorney communication and cannot be admitted as evidence in court.” He said arguing that the defense’s reasoning failed to establish a legitimate basis for his disqualification.
Govendo took the motions under advisement and promised a written decision by week’s end.
As of now the trial is set for January 2025, as both sides continue to prepare for what is shaping up to be a high-profile case.
Superior Court Presiding Roberto Naraja
