(Trinidad Guardian) Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar is being asked to refund more than TT$300,000 in legal fees to a client he represented at the Chaguanas Magistrates’ Court two years ago. The client has so far spent TT$800,000 in lawyer fees, TT$400,000 of which was paid to Ramadhar, political leader of the Congress of the People (COP) for legal representation at a preliminary inquiry. He has since filed a complaint against Ramadhar with the Disciplinary Committee at the Ministry of Justice.
The client, a businessman, is jointly charged with three others for a December 2009 murder. Last year, the men were committed to stand trial following paper committal proceedings. The complaint was lodged last week by the man’s wife at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain. Sources said letters were written to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, former Law Association president Dana Seetahal SC, permanent secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister Reynold Cooper, the Ministry of Justice, Ramadhar and the man’s other attorney, Jagdeo Singh.
In letters dated July 7, 2011, and July 29, 2012, addressed to Persad-Bissessar, Ramadhar’s former client asked the Prime Minster to intervene in the matter. Reference was made to a letter dated May 31, 2011, and addressed to Ramadhar, which requested a refund of monies for legal services that were not provided due to his “entry in the election campaign.”
“To date, he has neither responded nor contacted me…I had spoken to Mr Ramadhar over one year ago regarding my refund. Mr Ramadhar had stopped answering my calls and refused to return my numerous messages left at his south office. I would be truly grateful if you would assist in having Mr Ramadhar settle this matter amicably…”
On September 1, 2011, a letter was also written to Cooper seeking assistance but no acknowledgement was received. The Justice Ministry, through clients issues resolutions officer Beesham Seetaram, was the only one to acknowledge receipt of the complaint, which was lodged on September 13, 2011.
On November 9, 2011, Seetaram, acting on behalf of the permanent secretary, acknowledged receipt of her complaint. However, it was not until May 21, 2012, that Seetaram wrote to the client stating that attempts were made on two occasions—December 1, 2011, and April 17, 2012—to contact Ramadhar on the issue. “Both letters have not been responded to by Mr Ramadhar,” Seeteram wrote. Seetaram advised the client to “seek another avenue for redress.”
“In so doing you are advised that if you are so inclined you can lodge a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee.” Forms were enclosed in the letter. Sources at the Justice Ministry said cheques, along with copies of letters to the relevant individuals, as well as sworn affidavits were among the documents submitted to the committee.
