(Trinidad Guardian) Members of the Law Association of T&T have narrowly voted against a no-confidence motion in Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC.
The no-confidence motion and a second motion, calling on Armour to resign due to his disqualification in the State’s protracted civil asset recovery case related to fraud and corruption in the construction of the Piarco International Airport, were defeated by majority votes at the end of special general meeting the Hyatt Regency Hotel, a short while ago.
The no-confidence motion received 234 votes for and 317 against, while the second motion received 241 votes for and 310 against.
Even if the motions were passed by the membership, they would have had no real tangible effect as the association has no power to compel Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley to revoke Armour’s appointment or to force Armour’s resignation.
In late April, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Reemberto Diaz disqualified Armour and Sequor Law, the US law firm which was representing this country’s interest, from continued participation in the case.
The judge’s decision was reportedly based on Armour allegedly downplaying his role in previously representing former Finance Minister Brian Kuei Tung in separate local criminal proceedings over the project.
However, the judge refused Kuei Tung’s other application to strike out the entire lawsuit.
Former attorney general and current Local Government Minister Faris Al-Rawi was appointed as the substitute client representative for this country in the case which is scheduled to come up for hearing in September.
The State, through its new legal team, has challenged the decision but has been refused an expedited hearing of the appeal.
In a full-page newspaper advertisement, published after public commentary over what transpired in the case, Armour sought to cautiously address the issue as he denied that he misled the US Court when he initially claimed that he only played a minor role in representing Kuei Tung which was limited to research and note-taking.
Armour claimed that his initial affidavit to the court was prepared whilst he was abroad in Europe on vacation and he did not have access to his office records to fully recall the extent of his involvement in the case over 14 years ago.
He also claimed that he was not allowed to rectify the error when he had an opportunity to verify his records shortly after.
In the original requisition for the meeting, which was signed by over three dozen members, attorney Kiel Taklalsingh said that the group felt that the issue should be discussed by the membership as it concerns the integrity of the legal profession.
“Respectfully, these allegations, if left unaddressed, have the potential to erode public confidence in our profession, the administration of justice, and the rule of law,” Taklalsingh said.
Rowley has publically dismissed the move by the association to host the meeting as he addressed it at a press conference before he left to attend a recent Caricom heads of government meeting in Suriname.
Rowley said: “As for the Law Association, the only thing I am concerned about is who in this country has the opportunity to pass a vote of no confidence against the Law Association? Because I want to vote.”
Rowley also claimed that the association had previously attempted to entrap him to be a witness in another matter involving Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
“So, if you find me unfazed by the Law Association, I have good grounds because they only seem to be interested when it is time to create public discord. When it’s time to stand up for the public interest, they bury their heads in the sand like ostriches,” Rowley said.
Responding to Rowley, the association stated that it stated that it is obligated to call the meeting once it receives a valid requisition from its members.
It also called on Rowley to withdraw his “misleading” comments in relation to a previous investigation into CJ Archie.
The association noted that the matter involving CJ Archie was related to his alleged improper communications with Rowley, who only denied the communication when he announced that he would not impeach him (Archie) in July 2019.
“The Law Association’s enquiry was neither surreptitious nor an attempt to entrap the Prime Minister as alleged or at all,” it said, as claimed that it had to ask Rowley the questions as part of its enquiry.
“It is indeed regrettable that comments on the matter have been expressed in a way which suggests the Law Association acted improperly in discharging its legitimate functions,” it said.
