Ex-AG insisted: Government will honour indemnity deal with Nelson

Former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi insisted the Government had, through him, “continuously confirmed that it will honour its obligations of the indemnity agreement” with former state witness King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson.

Al-Rawi told this to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, so on December 18, 2020, when he referred to a letter from Nelson’s English solicitors, BCL Solicitors, who threatened to take the Government for any alleged breach of the indemnity agreement.

There were also threats that any breach of the alleged indemnity “would result in his refusal to give evidence.”

In repeated responses to the former AG, Gaspard declined to have his office involved in the purported indemnity agreement.

In fact, Al-Rawi spoke of the indemnity agreement from as early as April 9, 2019, a month before former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen were charged with conspiring with Nelson for Ramlogan, as AG, to misbehave in public office by accepting money from Nelson as a reward for giving him state briefs.

On Monday, Gaspard discontinued the State’s prosecution of the two attorneys, since Nelson said he was not willing to give evidence until his claim for breach of indemnity and damages was concluded.

Gaspard said Nelson was alleging that he was given indemnity in return for his providing a statement concerning “this case” against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.

In October 2021, Newsday reported exclusively on the alleged indemnity agreement between Nelson and Al-Rawi.

In May 2019, Nelson, 62, a tax attorney who lives in the UK, was indicted on three charges of conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption. The misbehaviour charge was discontinued after he entered a plea deal with the Office of the DPP.

Justice Malcolm Holdip sentenced him in March 2020 and ordered him to pay a total of $2.25 million in fines. In his civil claim, Nelson is seeking £12,163,460 in damages for the alleged breach of indemnity and, according to AG Reginald Armour, SC, he also wants the State to pay his fines.

Al-Rawi did not respond to questions on Monday, but Armour said he would “consider every available avenue to protect the public’s interests, including (but not limited to) civil proceedings to recover any possible proceeds of the crimes allegedly committed by Messrs Ramlogan and Ramdeen and disciplinary proceedings before the disciplinary committee of the legal profession (Law Association of TT)."

According to documents obtained by Newsday, Al-Rawi, in a statement to police, dated April 9, 2019, said after receiving Nelson’s statement – which set out the alleged kickback conspiracy – “...I signed an agreement on behalf of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He also pledged, “Further, the Government agreed to indemnify Mr Nelson against all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses and liabilities whatsoever which may be taken against him or be incurred or become payable or sustained by reason of the breach of any of the undertakings contained in the said agreement.”

The letters

In November 2020, BCL Solicitors wrote to Al-Wari informing him Nelson “is willing and prepared to give evidence” in Ramdeen and Ramlogan’s trial.

However, the letter said “in order for it to be possible to do so,” he would need the Government to “continue to honour its obligations under the indemnity agreement, particularly as it related to legal fees already incurred and those that would be incurred. The fees were quantified in the amount of 275,859.47 British pounds and outstanding legal fees to Nelson’s former attorney who represented him in the plea deal hearing, Roger Kawalsingh, in the sum of 450,000 British pounds.

The “indemnity” document was signed by both Al-Rawi and Nelson in November 2017 and subsequently initialled by both men in 2019.

On December 7, 2020, Al-Rawi wrote to Gaspard enclosing BCL’s letter, telling him Nelson was “willing and prepared to give evidence” at Ramlogan and Ramdeen’s trial but raised the question of fees and required that the Government “honour its obligations pursuant to the indemnity agreement.”

He told the DPP he was mindful of any allegations of undue influence and said he was bringing the letter to his “urgent attention” for Gaspard’s “consideration and advice.”

On December 16, 2020, Gaspard wrote to Al-Rawi declining to “proffer any advice” since “the handling of the same and its potential progenies falls entirely within your (Al-Rawi’s) pursue and that of your legal advisers.

Gaspard said, “Further, it is my considered opinion that it would be improper for my office to associate itself with this development.”

The next day, on December 17, 2020, BCL again wrote to Al-Rawi. They said Nelson remained willing to give evidence but “in order for him to do so, it is necessary for the GORTT to comply with its obligations under the indemnity,” for the payment of outstanding fees and new expenses arising from the plea deal.

For the first time, mention is made of a civil claim for breach of the agreement.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we are now in the position that unless we receive immediate payment of our fees, this firm and Mr Kawalsingh will have no option but to commence debt recovery proceedings against our client.”

The letter said, “it seems to us inevitable that a failure by the GORTT to meet the legal fees of Mr Nelson QC’s lawyers, would be regarded by him as a clear breach of the indemnity by the GORTT and would result in his refusal to give evidence.

“It would also result in the termination of our retainer with Mr Nelson QC which of itself would jeopardise the likelihood of his being prepared to assist the prosecution.”

The English lawyers said while they were not instructed on the civil claim for breach of the agreement, they were aware Nelson was seeking damages.

“The GORTT has already indicated in writing to Mr Kawalsingh, by way of letters dated April 23, 2019, and February 20, 2020, that it ‘shall fully and effectually honour its obligations arising out of and under the said written indemnity executed in favour of Mr Nelson QC.’

“...Mr Nelson QC requires the GORTT to agree for this claim to be addressed by way of arbitration…Provided these conditions can be met, Mr Nelson QC remains fully prepared to travel to Trinidad and be a witness for the prosecution at the trial of Messrs Ramdeen and Ramlogan.”

“We regret that unless this matter is settled as a matter of urgency, we will be left with no option but to pursue our fees via alternate means with the inevitable consequences that will follow.”

On December 18, 2020, the next day, Al-Rawi again wrote to Gaspard.

He provided him with BCL’s letter and said, “As you are aware, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago did indeed enter into an indemnity agreement with Mr Vincent Nelson QC as settled by senior counsel by which GORTT is bound.”

He said the government, through him, “has continuously confirmed that it will honour its obligations under the said indemnity agreement.”

Al-Rawi, who was removed as AG in March, this year, said he was concerned to keep the DPP fully apprised of all issues relative to the criminal prosecution of Ramdeen and Ramlogan to protect the sanctity of the criminal proceedings and “in particular against any potential allegation of undue influence which may arise.”

He informed Gaspard that the settlement of the legal fees fell under the ambit of the indemnity agreement but “will not proceed to treat” that issue without ascertaining Gaspard’s position on the same.

He said as it related to Nelson’s claim for damages of alleged breaches to the said agreement “occasioned as a result of Minister Young’s actions in the matter,” he held the view there will be no damages recoverable.

Al-Rawi said he was not opposed to the ventilation of Nelson’s claim before an independent forum since he was confident the matter would be decided in the government’s favour.

But, he said, he was mindful of the “potential damage” that the publicity of any such proceedings would have in the criminal case.

The former AG said Nelson’s claim was unique in the context of his “landmark whistle blowing testimony” in the criminal matter and in relation to the use of plea discussions and the plea agreement facilitated by the recent passage of the law on the latter.

He again asked for Gaspard’s advice but on December 23, 2020, the DPP said Nelson was “indeed a potentially critical witness for the State” and reiterated that his office “is loath to involve itself in any manner or form with any ‘indemnity agreement’ and its corollaries.

“Respectfully, those matters fall outside my purview.”

Nelson’s civil claim for breach of the alleged indemnity (CV oo408 of 2022) was amended and sealed this year by the court.

Newsday understands an application was being contemplated to have the case unsealed.