(Trinidad Guardian) Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s use of the term “wanted man” to describe former CL Financial chairman Lawrence Duprey is “illogical and inexplicable,” said Duprey’s attorney Lionel Luckhoo in a letter to the AG yesterday. Describing Ramlogan’s comments as “outrageous,” he warned that Duprey might have to consider seeking an injunction to stop the AG making “public statements with the weight of your office behind you that give the impression that you have already determined the outcome.”
However, in an immediate response Ramlogan said he was prepared to defend his claim and through his lawyer, Donna Prowell, told Luckhoo that he was ready to do to court if necessary. Luckhoo yesterday found it necessary to remind the AG several times of his constitutional role, summing up: “I am sure that you need no reminding that the role of the Attorney General does not stretch to being prosecutor, judge and jury.”
He also admonished Ramlogan: “You are to be reminded, Attorney General, that you are a leader in the legal profession and should be setting examples of integrity and rectitude. Your interference is contrary to those tenets of your role.” On Thursday, in a post-Cabinet news conference at the Diplomatic Centre, St Ann’s, Ramlogan had said Duprey’s failure to appear at the commission of enquiry, where he is the “central protagonist,” made him a “wanted man.”
Luckhoo complained: “The use by you of the pejorative phrase ‘wanted man’ is frankly both illogical and inexplicable. The phrase has of course been seized by many newspaper reports.”
Luckhoo, therefore, told Ramlogan he was issuing his letter to the media in view of the prominent coverage Ramlogan’s comments had received. He noted that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against Duprey. “There is at this stage an enquiry which should continue without any political interference and without seeking to pre-judge its results or compromise the constitutional fair-trial rights that are possessed by all in this country.”
He also accused the Attorney General of breaking the promise he made to the people of T&T when he took office, and of usurping the role of the commissioner of the enquiry. “You have arrogated unto yourself the role of the commissioner, who, it is hoped, would consider all the evidence and the submissions that he has yet to receive before making any public pronouncements, which is further hoped and indeed expected to be within his terms of office.”
Luckhoo also pointed out that it is the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who exercises powers with regard to the institution and undertaking of criminal proceedings. “You will of course fully appreciate that…your office and function is separate and distinct from that of the DPP,” he said. He suggested that Ramlogan should follow the example of the DPP.
“You might consider taking a lesson from another office-holder—the DPP—who apart from perfectly properly confirming that he has asked for an investigation, has sought to do all he can to protect the fair-trial rights of those under investigation.” Luckhoo also said his client Duprey had co-operated fully with the enquiry and it was untrue to state otherwise.
“It is incumbent on me to correct this view by stating unequivocally that my client co-operated with the enquiry process, save where same seemed to conflict with his fair-trial rights,” he added. He said Duprey was “astounded” by what seemed to be the Attorney General’s criticism of the police for failing to arrest Duprey. “So far as I am aware, the Police Service were not asked to effect service of a witness summons/subpoena,” Luckhoo said.
“Indeed they could not as Mr Duprey has been ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction for a number of years and has not been to Trinidad since the middle of 2009. “It would not then have been possible therefore to serve him with legal process within the jurisdiction and service abroad of a witness summons would never be an acceptable process for a commission of enquiry, as you will know!”
