(Trinidad Express) For the first time in this country’s history an auditor general has filed a lawsuit against an attorney general.
Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass is claiming her constitutional rights have been breached, and she is seeking protection under the law as well as payment of her legal fees.
Freedom Law Chambers, led by former AG Anand Ramlogan, SC, filed the Auditor General’s claim in the High Court on Tuesday against Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC. An urgent hearing is being requested.
The claim states the Auditor General wishes to have the benefit of legal advice and guidance to navigate the “multiple legal issues that have arisen in the public interest”.
It added: “In going forward, she requires immediate legal advice so that she can be certain that she is acting within the law. The Resolution has been granted by Parliament extending time ex post facto, after she had completed and submitted her (2023 audit) Report.
“No one has communicated with her Office regarding this matter since she submitted her Report and hence she is unclear as to what is expected and required of her.”
The claim noted that AG Armour indicated that he has the advice of senior counsel on the issue of whether the State will bear the reasonable legal costs of the Auditor General, but he has given no deadline for his response.
“However, the Auditor General has already incurred legal expenses for advice and representation. She was compelled to defend her office after the misleading statements that were made by the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General in Parliament.
“She is therefore extremely concerned about the reluctance of the Attorney General to bear these legal costs in circumstances where he could not reasonably provide independent advice to her, and it was necessary for her to act quickly to defend her integrity and the independence of her office,” states the claim.
“The Claimant therefore seeks relief so that she can meet her legal expenses. The Auditor General also wishes to seek judicial guidance on whether her Office is entitled to seek the independent legal advice and representation in circumstances where there is a conflict with the Government and Attorney General, such that it is not possible or proper for the Attorney General to advise her,” it added.
Declarations sought
According to the court documents, Ramdass alleged that her right to protection under the Constitution is being, or is “likely to be breached by the arbitrary, manifestly unfair and irrational action and/or conduct of the Attorney General concerning issues that have arisen pertaining to the Report of the Auditor General on the Public Accounts of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago for the financial year 2023”.
Her attorneys have submitted that the Auditor General’s constitutional rights have also been breached and she is seeking several declarations, including her right to protection under the law.
She is also seeking:
• A declaration that the Auditor General is entitled to retain and instruct counsel of her choice to represent the Office of the Auditor General in any matter where there is a dispute with the Government and she has reasonable grounds to believe that the AG cannot render independent legal advice and representation and that the AG is required to bear the reasonable costs associated with same.
• A declaration that the Auditor General was/is entitled to retain and instruct counsel of her choice to advise and represent the Office of the Auditor General on issues that have arisen pertaining to the preparation and laying of the report and that the AG is required to bear the reasonable costs associated with same.
• Damages including vindicatory damages;
• Costs on an indemnity basis;
• Such further relief as the honourable court may deem just.
Timeline
The claim outlined in detail the entire timeline of what allegedly transpired, including the “attacks” against the Auditor General by the AG and Finance Minister Colm Imbert in the Parliament on April 26.
It states that Ramdass’ office, integrity and character were under attack and she was forced to retain and instruct senior and junior counsel to act on an immediate and urgent basis to respond to the scathing political attack against her and her office—and a legal response was issued on April 28 in defence of her office.
The attorneys stated that Ramdass considered that she was entitled to retain and instruct independent counsel of her choice, given the fundamental public importance and urgency of the matter and the AG could not assist her because of his conflict of interest, having already given advice to Imbert and also because he attacked her in the Parliament.
The claim noted that on April 29, 2024, the Office of the Attorney General wrote to Ramdass’ attorneys, stating that his offer to pay for her independent advice was limited to the specific issue that she had then sought his opinion on—whether she is “required to consider the amended Statements in light of the provisions of section 24 and 25 of the Exchequer and Audit Act”.
The document stated that Ramdass was “taken aback” by the AG’s position, and needed clarification and confirmation that he would in fact bear her reasonable costs in this matter.
It stated that a letter dated April 29, 2024, was sent to the AG formally requesting that the State pay for the cost of her legal advice and representation, and his office replied saying that advice was being sought from senior counsel.