(Trinidad Express) The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) has called on Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, to break his silence over the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, SC, and former Senator Gerald Ramdeen.
LATT also called on Armour to say what role his predecessor Faris Al-Rawi played in the granting of an indemnity agreement to potential State witness King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson and to reveal to the public the total sum of money that was paid to Nelson or to persons acting on his behalf.
In a news release yesterday, LATT stated the matter relating to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against Ramlogan and Ramdeen, which has played out in the public domain, warrants analysis, and the Council of the Law Association has carefully considered the views presented.
LATT said having refrained from commenting previously due to each day throwing up even more startling revelations, they will now comment on the issue they believe are most serious. Noting that while an Attorney General can lawfully receive information with regard to criminal activities from any source, it is their respectful view that Armour should say whether there was any participation, or involvement by Al-Rawi in the actual collection of evidence for the purposes of prosecution.
“It is also our view that the signing of the indemnity agreement in 2017, was highly unusual and made more worrying because it appears that Mr Vincent Nelson, KC, continued to be the recipient of financial benefits from the Government of Trinidad and Tobago after it was signed. Moreover, the alleged agreement appears to contemplate additional benefits to the proposed witness,” LATT stated.
“Further, Clause 4 of the indemnity agreement, which has been circulating in the public domain, assuming it is authentic, contains an undertaking by a political office holder to make recommendations to the DPP about whether criminal proceedings should be commenced against the proposed witness and a purported agreement by the former Attorney General to enter into an agreement whereby he agreed to conceal this information from Parliament, which is our highest court.”
LATT noted that if there was such agreement between a political office holder and a potential witness in criminal proceedings, it is simply wrong, and added that criminal investigations and prosecutions should carry no political taint.
“The DPP’s office is constitutionally protected and independent. It is for this reason that only the DPP under the Criminal Procedure Act is authorized to negotiate plea agreements with potential witnesses. Having reviewed the DPP’s statement to the court regarding the discontinuance, we are of the considered view that the DPP acted within his constitutional authority.
“We cannot, however, ignore the fact that the absence of the witness from the prosecutorial process appears to have been connected with an indemnity agreement he entered into with the former Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi in 2017, and it appears that a purported breach of this indemnity agreement led, principally, to the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings,” LATT added.
The Law Association said another worrying issue is that monies were purportedly paid to different persons acting on behalf of Nelson, or monies are purportedly owed to different persons who are now making claims against the State.
“These are only some of the serious issues which concerns LATT and the general public, and it is absolutely essential the current Attorney General, in his role as the guardian of the public interest, breaks his silence and issue a full and unambiguous statement on these matters.”
Following are the issues LATT called on Armour to address:
1. Whether the former Attorney General participated or was involved in the actual collection of evidence for the purposes of prosecution;
2. Whether Mr Vincent Nelson continued to be the recipient of legal fees from the Government after he made a statement against interest in a criminal investigation;
3. Whether the fees being referred to in the indemnity agreement being circulated in the public domain, which undertook that “no civil proceeding will be commenced for repayment of any legal fees paid to you in respect of legal business in the period 2010 to 2017’, related to fees that were procured in a manner that was subject to criminal investigation, and/or the subject of the statement against interest made by Mr Nelson.
4. Whether in procuring the indemnity agreement the former Attorney General negotiated a plea agreement, which is the exclusive remit of the DPP;
5. Why did the former Attorney General enter into an agreement with a potential witness in a serious criminal matter involving a political opponent which requires the parties to conceal evidence from Parliament; and
6. A detailed account of all funds paid to Mr Nelson and his proxies, servants or agents including his attorneys arising out of the indemnity agreement, together with appropriate vouching and justification, including legal fees, fines or outstanding fees, taxes or liens paid on his behalf.
Stating that it is not in a position to determine, in the absence of the full response requested, whether there has been corruption, misfeasance in public office or politically motivated prosecution of any public official, politician or attorney, LATT said it maintains that the absence of any robust explanation to the public will encourage speculation of wrongdoing or covering up of wrongdoing.
