Nelson already paid $1m in indemnity agreement with government

ALMOST $1 million in legal fees have been paid by the State to Vincent Nelson KC, as part of the purported indemnity agreement signed by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi.

Correspondence between Nelson’s attorneys in London and Al-Rawi, in December 2020, shows invoices for October and December 2018; January, February and April 2019, were paid, amounting to £85,759.61.

The firm BCL Solicitors, in that letter dated December 17, 2020, also said by paying the BCL invoices, the Government “has already unequivocally accepted liability under the indemnity for legal expenses.”

The firm also reminded Al-Rawi of earlier correspondence about payment of over $6 million in outstanding legal fees to the firm and Nelson’s attorney, Roger Kawalsingh.

On October 9, 2019, Kawalsingh sent an invoice for $4.5 million for several meetings, phone calls, Skype and phone conferences, overseas travel to Barbados and London, meetings at the airport, court appearances and attendance at the police station.

Nelson’s British attorneys, BCL Solicitors, also wrote to Al-Rawi on November 23, 2020, reminding him of the government’s obligations to honour its obligations under the indemnity agreement to pay legal fees, those already incurred up to that time and those that would become due for ongoing proceedings.

BCL said the fees for work for Nelson by the firm and fees for Tom Allen, KC, who came to Trinidad for Nelson’s plea deal hearing, were £275,859.47 and £450,000 for Kawalsingh.

BCL said for Nelson to “give evidence” in the criminal prosecution of former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen, it was “necessary for the GORTT to comply with its obligations under the indemnity” by paying its fees and Kawalsingh’s.

As part of the indemnity agreement, 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.”

Nelson has since sued the State for an alleged breach of the indemnity agreement and wants £12.1 million in damages. He also wants the State to pay the $2.25 million fines he was ordered to pay when he was sentenced in March 2020, according to AG Reginald Armour, SC.

He also wants the fees of his attorneys in his plea deal discussions and proceedings paid by the State.

In its December 2020 letter, BCL said the remaining legal fees had been outstanding for a “considerable period of time,” with the oldest invoice dating back to May 2019.

“We see no reason for any further delay in settlement of the outstanding invoices in accordance with the obligations under paragraph 5 of the indemnity.

“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 firm warned that the government's failure to pay the legal fees of Nelson’s lawyer would be regarded as a breach of the indemnity and would result in his refusing to give evidence.

BCL said the government had given Kawalsingh assurances that it would honour its obligations under the indemnity agreement, and “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."

Newsday was told the failure to pay the outstanding fees prompted Nelson to file the civil claim for breach of the indemnity.

Genesis of purported indemnity agreement

Nelson had agreed to drop his $10 million claim against the Government for unpaid legal fees when former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi indemnified him from prosecution and liability for providing information on the alleged legal-fees kickback conspiracy with attorneys Anand Ramlogan and Gerald Ramdeen.

Nelson, who pleaded guilty to the alleged kickback for state briefs scheme, eventually received the $10 million between 2017 and 2019, during Al-Rawi’s tenure as attorney general.

In July 2021, Al-Rawi disclosed documents on legal fees paid to private attorneys by the Office of the Attorney General.

The list showed Nelson receiving payments of $10,230,502.96 between 2017 and 2018, and $768,718.50 between 2018 and 2019.

He also allegedly received $40,671,814.26, between 2010 and 2015, a previous list presented in Parliament had said.

In 2017, Nelson sued the Attorney General for $10 million in unpaid legal fees. He had been retained in 2014 to represent the BIR in a series of tax appeals against energy company bpTT.

In that matter, Justice Ricky Rahim dismissed the AG’s application to strike out Nelson’s lawsuit.

The State filed a procedural appeal of Rahim’s ruling on October 6, 2017, and afterwards, Al-Rawi said Nelson’s attorney Roger Kawalsingh contacted him to say the Jamaican attorney wanted to “inform and disclose certain corrupt practices” by the former attorney general.

“He informed me that Mr Nelson was deeply concerned about his personal liability in the matter but that Mr Nelson was fully prepared to disclose those matters and supporting evidence but that he wished to be indemnified in consideration of the same.”

Al-Rawi received Nelson’s statement on October 26, 2017, and said “as a result,” he signed the indemnity agreement on behalf of the Government in November 2017.

Al-Rawi set out the details behind the signing of the agreement and the procedural history involving Nelson’s demand for payment in a statement to police on April 9, 2019.

On Monday, Director of Public Prosecution Roger Gaspard, SC, discontinued the criminal prosecution against Ramlogan and Ramdeen. He said Nelson was not willing to give evidence in that matter until his claim for breach of the alleged indemnity agreement came to an end.

Gaspard said it would be unfair to leave the case against the former AG and UNC senator in limbo until the outcome of Nelson’s civil claim.

In Nelson’s earlier claim against the State, Al-Rawi, in his April 2019 statement, admitted it was never in dispute that the money was due to Nelson for his work for the State.

Delivering a preliminary decision in Nelson’s claim for that payment, Rahim had ruled that the AG’s office failed to prove Nelson had no basis for bringing the claim and that it was an abuse of process.

The judge said the issues raised in Nelson’s lawsuit should go to trial. The State had argued that Nelson breached his retainer contract, as the tax appeals were settled with bpTT for $2 billion in May 2015 and did not go to trial.

In December of that year, the State withdrew its appeal, which sought to challenge Rahim’s refusal to strike out the lawsuit.

In Parliament, Al-Rawi did not disclose what the fees paid to Nelson were for, but noted in his statement that in one case alone for the Board of Inland Revenue (BIR), his office incurred expenditure of $10,230,502.96 to one external professional, which, he said, resulted in the State collecting over $1 billion in revenue.

In his statement, Al-Rawi said on December 12, 2017, based on his instructions, the State sent a “without prejudice” letter to Nelson’s attorneys with the terms of a settlement of Nelson’s $10 million claim.

It was agreed Nelson would discontinue and withdraw the December 6, 2016, claim and the State would pay his attorneys’ costs of $288,403.10, after which the AG would withdraw the procedural appeal.

Nelson’s attorneys agreed to that position the same day and on December 14, 2017, he withdrew his claim and the next day the State filed its notice to withdraw its appeal. On December 18, 2017, the appeal court gave the State permission to drop its challenge of Rahim’s order.

Nelson’s bill for the BIR matter was £1.5 million. He was paid £150,000 in January 2015 and sued for the remaining £1,050,000. Nelson had been retained for a number of matters from 2010-2015, including seven on behlaf of state enterprises.

He also represented Petrotrin against its former chairman Malcolm Jones and later advised that that matter, which sought $1 billion in damages for breach of fiduciary duty, should be withdrawn.

Highlights of the indemnity agreement

The purported indemnity agreement assured Nelson’s statement would not be released in Parliament or in the public, nor would his name.

It also gave assurances that no civil proceedings would commence against him on any matter arising out of the statement he gave, or by the government for the repayment of any fees paid to him between November 2010 and 2017.

It also gave an undertaking that recommendations would be made to the DPP that no criminal proceedings should be commenced against him.

It said the Government of TT “agrees to indemnify you and keep you fully effectually indemnified from and against all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses and liabilities which may be taken or made against you or be incurred or become payment or sustained by you by reason for any breach of any undertaking contained here.”

The purported “indemnity” agreement promised to cover any legal costs Nelson incurred in any defamation claim filed by any individual wanting to force him to withdraw his statement.

It also said his statement would not be disclosed to any criminal investigatory and/or prosecuting authority, tax enforcement authority and/or regulatory and/or disciplinary authority outside Trinidad and Tobago.

It further said no delay or omission on his part in exercising any right, power, privilege or remedy would impair any right or be construed as a waiver of it.