[UPDATED] Attorney General zips lips on Piarco-accused case

Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, who has been under fire for the past 17 days over his role in the multi-million-dollar civil asset forfeiture case against a former government minister and others, linked to the construction of the $1.6 billion Piarco Airport terminal project, said his limited public response was tactical, as he did not want to give the accused any opportunity to escape justice.

In his maiden news conference at the AG's office, Government Campus Plaza, Richmond Street, Port of Spain, since being appointed on March 16, Armour repeatedly deflected questions on his role in the Miami fraud case against former government minister Brian Kuei Tung and others.

On April 27, a US judge automatically disqualified Armour as the representative of the government, as well as the US law firm Sequor Law, from taking any part in the matter because of an apparent conflict of interest in that Armour was chief prosecutor against someone he once defended. The court gave its written decision on May 2 and the government appealed the ruling on June 1.

When questioned about his startling June 20 statement that he waited in vain in his hotel room on April 26, while on vacation in Europe, to get an opportunity to correct the court's record of his deeper involvement as a criminal defence attorney for Kuei Tung, the AG said the question was too convoluted.

He was given the context of the events which led to the situation and asked what efforts, if any, he made to contact former AG Faris Al-Rawi, who attended the Miami hearing on April 27, or Sequor Law, to correct the court's record.

"I don't intend to make any comments beyond what was said in my statement on Monday, and I am not going to change my mind on that," he said. "You asked so many questions rolled up into one long rambling series of questions that even if I was inclined to answer them, I would not know where to begin."

An offer was made to break down the questions, which he declined, saying, "I am not inviting you to. I am not making any comments. I have said what I had to say in my statement. I assume people have read my statement. If people have not read it, I invite you to read it. "

Asked his response to the growing chorus for him to step down as the titular head of the bar for a possible breach of the code of ethics of the Legal Profession Act, where a lawyer ought to be forthright, truthful and honest with a court, Armour responded, "What I would say to that, I would repeat what I said before: I have nothing further to say beyond my statement that was published on Monday.

"There are impending judicial proceedings. I do not intend to go beyond what I have said in very restricted terms to make any comment on anything that has the potential to impact on the proceedings that are taking place in Miami. I do not intend to give anyone another Section 34 opportunity to derail the trials that are taking place in Miami for another ten years," he said as he ended the press conference, which was called to repeat a statement he had made hours earlier.

His reference to Section 34 is related to an amendment of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act in 2014 by the former People's Partnership administration which would purportedly have changed the law in favour of the airport accused. The legislation proposed that people accused of serious crimes, including corruption, could apply to have their cases thrown out for want of prosecution after ten years had passed without the cases coming to trial.

The then Opposition PNM led public rallies condemning the move, and the government, led by Kamla Persad-Bissessar, repealed the law and fired justice minister Herbert Volney for misrepresenting the Cabinet on the berth of consultation on the proposed law.

Armour, 65, has been at the centre of a growing storm over his role in advising US lawyers to prosecute Kuei Tung and others even though he once represented the former minister in related criminal proceedings in TT.

On June 5, in a statement, Armour claimed he disclosed his apparent conflict of interest to the US lawyers hired to prosecute Kuei Tung and others but admitted he signed off on related matters involving a co-operating witness, among other administrative issues.

In a sworn affidavit, he claimed he was a junior lawyer when he represented Kuei Tung in 2004 and took a minimal role as a legal researcher and notetaker.

His account conflicts with the public record, as Armour was then a senior counsel and played a major role as a criminal defence attorney. Earlier this week, he issued a public statement saying he had misremembered his role and had tried to submit a corrected affidavit a month ago, shortly after the first one.

He faces a possible vote of no confidence by the legal fraternity and an investigation by the Law Association, and the opposition intends to debate a motion of no confidence against him in the House of Representatives.

This story has been adjusted to include additional details. See original post below.

Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, on Wednesday deflected questions on his role in the Miami fraud case against former government minister Brian Kuei Tung and others linked to the construction of the Piarco Airport terminal building, saying he did not want to create any loophole for the accused to escape justice.

In his maiden press conference at the Attorney General's office, Richmond Street, Port of Spain since being appointed on March 16, Armour said he would not be baited to comment further on his disqualification from the US case, so as not to create a Section 34 escape route for those awaiting trial.

His reference to Section 34 is related to an amendment of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous) Bill in 2014 by the former People's Partnership administration which would purportedly have changed the law in favour of the airport accused. The legislation proposed people accused of serious crimes, including corruption, could apply to have their cases thrown out for want of prosecution after ten years had passed without the cases coming trial.

The then Opposition PNM led public rallies condemning the move and the government, led by Kamla Persad-Bissessar, repealed the law and fired justice minister Herbert Volney for misrepresenting the Cabinet on the berth of consultation of the proposed law.

Armour, 65, who replaced San Fernando West MP Faris Al-Rawi as attorney general in a surprise Cabinet shake-up, has been at the centre of a growing storm over his role in advising US lawyers to prosecute Kuei Tung and others even though he once represented the former minister in related criminal proceedings in Trinidad and Tobago.

On June 5, in a statement Armour claimed he disclosed his apparent conflict of interest to the US lawyers hired to prosecute Kuei Tung and others but admitted he signed off on related matters involving a co-operating witness, among other administrative issues.

In a sworn affidavit, he claimed he was a junior lawyer when he represented Kuei Tung in 2004 and took a minimal role as a legal researcher and note-taker.

His account conflicts with the public record, as Armour was then a senior counsel and played a major role as a criminal defence attorney.

He refused to answer any questions about the obvious differences and what steps he took to correct the court's record about his deeper role in the airport case.

Earlier this week he issued a public statement saying he had misremembered his role and had tried to submit a corrected affidavit a month ago, shortly after the first one.

He faces a possible vote of no confidence by the legal fraternity and the opposition intends to debate a motion of no confidence against him in the House of Representatives.