Criminal Bar wants full probe of Nelson, Al-Rawi deal

The Criminal Bar Association says it is disappointed Attorney General Reginald Armour has opted not to provide details to the Law Association about the role of a former attorney general in signing off a plea deal with a witness against a political opponent.

In a statement signed by its president Israel Khan, SC, the association said the terms of the indemnity agreement signed by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi and attorney Vincent Nelson "must be ventilated under due process of law in our courts" to determine whether any criminal offences were committed.

Armour has opted not to answer the Law Association on the basis that the civil case filed by Nelson is yet to be determined and there was a possibility of the criminal charges being relaid. Al-Rawi said he relied on the advice of two senior counsel on the terms of the indemnity agreement.

Nelson was the main witness against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and former UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen in a series of criminal offences relating to legal fees kickback scheme but on October 10, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard discontinued the charges on the basis of demands from the witness to settle a purported breach of the indemnity agreement.

Nelson who pleaded guilty to the offences had been fined $2.5 million and has up to January 2023 to pay. But he is claiming that he will not testify if the Attorney General does not hold up its end of the indemnity agreement which includes paying his fine.

In its statement, the association said the DPP, AG and the Prime Minister owe it to the public to give full explanations "in the fullness of time" of all the circumstances which led to the dropping of the charges against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.

The association reiterated the questions the Law Association posed to the Attorney General about Al-Rawi's role in getting the witness to co-operate.

In his response to the Law Association, Armour said it was inappropriate for him to comment further in the matter as his office was the defendant in the $100 million civil claim filed by Nelson seeking compensation for an alleged breach of the indemnity agreement.

The Law Association in its statement on the matter said if the terms of the indemnity agreement were accurate, "it is simply wrong; criminal investigations and prosecutions should carry no political taint."