AG: I will not answer Law Association's questions

ATTORNEY GENERAL Reginald Armour, SC, will not be answering any of the Law Association’s questions on events which precipitated the now-controversial collapse of the criminal prosecution of former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen.

On Friday, the association had six questions for the attorney general on the role of his predecessor Faris Al-Rawi; the payment of fees to convicted whistleblower King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson; and the indemnity agreement signed between Nelson and the Government.

On Sunday, Armour wrote to the association’s president Sophia Chote, SC, “out of respect” for the important pivotal national role and function of the association.

Armour said he has already voiced his concerns and will “say no more.”

“I will not be responding to that media statement in the public domain.”

He also said he has already spoken on the issue.

“As Attorney General, on the 10th October 2022, I have already stated my concern that the criminal prosecution was discontinued; that I am committed to protecting the public interest and that I will be taking advice going forward.

“This I am doing. With respect, I say no more.”

Armour, a former president of the association, did vocalise another concern of his: “A narrative building in the public domain which appears designed by some to pre-empt the director (of Public Prosecutions) from reinstating the discontinued prosecution against Messrs Ramlogan and Ramdeen when his witness becomes available.

“I consider it wholly inappropriate to engage in any public debate and do not propose to join the ongoing public narrative.”

Armour also expressed his astonishment that the association “issued such a public statement in the first place.

“More so, to issue a call for me, as Attorney General, to engage in a public discussion of very serious issues which are clearly governed by the sub- judice rule and which potentially may influence or impact the outcome of those proceedings.”

He also reminded the association that as AG, his office was the defendant in Nelson’s civil claim for $100 million for an alleged breach of the indemnity agreement and the association’s own position on the sub-judice rule, on October 19, 2021, when it sought to chastise the prime minister for statements he made involving the civil claim over the bail-for-murder law.

In its statement on Friday, the association, after a two-week silence, said it had refrained, over the last two weeks, from commenting so far because “each day has disclosed even more startling revelations.”

It also said it was unable at present to comment on all of the issues, but had questions for Armour, warning that the absence of a full and robust explanation and response from him would "encourage speculation of wrongdoing or covering up of wrongdoing."

It also said it was not in a position to determine whether 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.

It also said it viewed the indemnity agreement as “highly unusual and worrying.”

On the clause in the agreement which contained an undertaking by a political office-holder to make recommendations to the DPP about criminal proceedings against Nelson, and Al-Rawi’s agreement to conceal information from the Parliament, the association said, if true, it was “simply wrong.

“If there was such an agreement between a political office-holder and a potential witness in criminal proceedings, it was simply wrong; criminal investigations and prosecutions should carry no political taint.”

“We cannot, however, ignore the fact that the absence of the witness from the prosecutorial process appears to have been connected with an indemnity agreement which he entered into with the former attorney general Mr Faris Al-Rawi in 2017, and it appears that a purported breach of this indemnity agreement led, principally, to the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings.”

In announcing the decision to discontinue the corruption case, DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, said Nelson was not willing to give evidence in that matter until his civil claim came to an end.

Hours after the shocking announcement, on October 10, Armour, in his statement, reminded that Nelson has not, to date, recanted any admission of wrongdoing he made in the criminal proceedings and the discontinuance of the criminal charges “has understandably come as a stunning development and surprise.”

The AG said the discontinuance was also surprising because Nelson entered into a plea agreement with the DPP to give evidence against Ramlogan and Ramdeen “in exchange for a recommendation by the director to the High Court that Nelson is given a non-custodial sentence.

“As Attorney General, I wish to assure the people of this country that I will 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).”

Armour also said he intended the advice of eminent local and foreign senior and King’s Counsel “to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the pursuit of justice for the people of TT,”

He was immediately criticised by another former president of the Law Association, Martin Daly, SC, who said Armour’s statement was "ill-advised and ill-considered, both in tone and content.

"Had he been aware of all the background manoeuvring he probably would not have been stunned. He spoke incautiously, if not worse," Daly said.