Lawyer calls out ex-AG's advisers in Nelson deal

The two senior counsel who advised former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi on the indemnity agreement with convicted King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson are being asked to publicly come clean on their roles in the drafting of the controversial settlement.

The call comes from Senior Counsel Israel Khan who said his request is being made in his personal capacity. Khan is president of the Criminal Bar Association.

At a media conference last week, Al-Rawi admitted to his role in forging an indemnity agreement between the Government and Nelson but said he did not advise himself on preparing it.

He said the arrangement was made after the AG's Office hired two senior counsel in 2017 when Nelson came forward with the information of the alleged criminal conspiracy to defraud the State.

He named Douglas Mendes, SC, and Gilbert Peterson, SC, as the two attorneys who assisted the Government to prepare the indemnity agreement.

Both men declined to comment when contacted by Newsday immediately after their names were called.

On Saturday, Khan said the agreement was ab initio ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power from the beginning) the Constitution and those who assisted or advised cannot now hide behind the shield of lawyer/client privilege.

He said nowhere in the Constitution, or under any statute, is the attorney general, or any other minister, authorised to enter into an indemnity agreement in order to facilitate a potential witness under whistle-blower legislation to give evidence against alleged bribe takers.

“This is the prerogative of the DPP who would request the police to take the necessary witness statements and the DPP will decide on what sort of leniency he will plea bargain with the witness.”

In addressing both men, Khan told them by now they knew Al-Rawi named them as his advisers on the indemnity agreement”

“I doubt very much that both of you knew that the massive inducements will be hidden from the DPP and Parliament and, most of all, that Vincent Nelson will use this agreement as the basis of pleading guilty and giving evidence against his co-accused for bribery and corruption.”

Khan had two questions for Mendes and Peterson.

“Were there legal retainers for giving the advice, if you did give the advice or was it pro bono (free of charge) work?

“Did any of you have sight of this indemnity agreement in order to give the advice or was it done via a telephone conversation?”

Khan pointed out that the Law Association in its statement on Friday held the view the signing of the agreement was “highly unusual and simply wrong,” but he said he was of the view it could be “an illegal act.”

He said it was no business of the former AG to bargain with a potential witness, pay millions to his lawyers, and make promises the agreement will be “kept secret.”

Khan pointed out the agreement was not revealed to the judge who accepted the plea deal between Nelson and the State in 2019 or at his sentencing in 2020.

It is for this reason he wants his colleagues to come clean on circumstances surrounding the indemnity agreement.

Khan also said it was because of the inducements provided by the agreement that led the bribery and corruption charges against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen to “go down the drain.”

“Speak out. Be sagacious,” he urged them.

Opposition: Law Association's response lacks courage

On Saturday, Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar said the Law Association wasted the opportunity to use their weight as protectors of the rule of law and promoters of the administration of justice to firmly call out members of the fraternity “who have been found wanting and to publicly denounce their conduct.”

She said the “long overdue statement” was “pusillanimous,” or lacking in courage and resolution, and simply repeated what is already known.

“It truly is a chilling moment for the democracy of Trinidad and Tobago when the LATT will not vigorously defend the constitutional rights of citizens from persecution.”

On October 10, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, made the shocking announcement of the decision to discontinue the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.

In announcing the decision to discontinue the corruption case, Gaspard said Nelson was not willing to give evidence in that matter until his civil claim for an alleged breach of an indemnity agreement with the Government for his testimony came to an end. Former AG Al-Rawi signed the agreement on behalf of the Government.

Nelson, 64, is now suing the State for over $96 million for loss of earnings after being expelled from a prestigious UK firm; loss of insurance benefits; the $2.5 million fine he was ordered to pay when he pleaded guilty; and additional sums if the UK authorities make demands on him for alleged unpaid taxes.

Information provided to the police by Al-Rawi, as of July 2021, Nelson’s attorneys – his UK solicitors and his former TT attorney Roger Kawalsingh – were paid a little over $8.4 million.

On Friday, after a two-week silence, the Law Association posed five questions to Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, to answer on Al-Rawi’s role in events that precipitated the collapse of the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen and the signing of the indemnity agreement between Nelson and the State.

In its statement, LATT admitted it was not in a position to determine if there “has been corruption, misfeasance in public office or politically motivated prosecution of any public official, politician or attorney.”

“High public office holders must operate within and respect the boundaries of their respective offices,” it further noted.