Whether Anand or Faris, no ex-AG is above the law

ISRAEL KHAN

THE Criminal Bar Association (CBA) is disappointed with Attorney General Reginal Armour’s refusal to accede to the request of the Law Association (LATT) to provide relevant and pertinent information which would assist in deciding whether former AG Faris Al-Rawi breached the constitution and thus committed acts amounting to misbehaviour in public office when he signed a purported indemnity agreement with Vincent Nelson, KC, on behalf of the Government.

We acknowledge it is within Armour’s prerogative to refuse, at this stage, the LATT’s request. After all, he is in agreement with the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the $100 million Nelson is claiming for breach of the agreement is void on account of public policy.

The CBA agrees with Armour that the terms of the agreement between Al-Rawi and Nelson must be ventilated under due process in our courts.

But the CBA wishes to state that it is our firm legal opinion that the entire agreement is unconstitutional and thus null and void.

Neither the Constitution nor any statutory provisions on our law books permit Al-Rawi to enter the so-called indemnity agreement which thus gave an undertaking to Nelson and his lawyers that Government accepted the agreement and would honour it.

There are clear legal authorities emanating from our Court of Appeal which make it abundantly clear and unambiguous that the AG cannot do what Al-Rawi did, and more so at the behest of Nelson’s lawyers.

The CBA wonders whether Al-Rawi was misled, tricked or outmanoeuvred by Nelson and his lawyers, or was he so extraordinarily anxious to tighten allegations of corruption and bribery against former AG Anand Ramlogan and former senator Gerald Ramdeen that he allowed himself to be shanghaied by Nelson’s lawyers?

Be that as it may, AG Armour, in reply to LATT’s request for information, stated there were very serious issues in the said agreement and he would not publicly reveal or discuss them with LATT.

It must be noted that his refusal to divulge information to LATT is not a defence or condemnation of Al-Rawi for entering with Nelson’s lawyers the terms of the agreement.

The CBA believes in the fullness of time our AG, as the chief legal adviser to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will have to, and must, proffer legal advice to government on whether former AG Al-Rawi committed the criminal offence of misbehaviour in public office; and in so doing, misled the Cabinet, or did nothing wrong because he obtained legal advice from two of the most senior and experienced lawyers in this country and hence is absolved from any wrongdoing and thus can continue to be a member of Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley's Cabinet.

In the final analysis it will eventually be the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister to decide the political career of Al-Rawi.

The Prime Minister must bear in mind that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions inevitably has a vital role to play in this imbroglio. After all, it was DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, who shocked our sitting AG and the general public when he discontinued the corruption and bribery charges against (former AG Anand) Ramlogan and (former senator Gerald) Ramdeen.

The general public is very much concerned, and so too is the CBA, whether the present status of the agreement standing by itself for determination in court is the only and real reason for the discontinuation of the corruption and bribery charges or, is there more in the mortar than the pestle on this vexing issue?

The DPP, AG and the PM owe it to the citizenry, in the fullness of time, to give full explanations of this entire sordid affair which led to the discontinuation of the charges. After all, this is the biggest corruption case to emerge in TT.

It is quite obvious that the allegations of corruption by Nelson against Ramlogan and Ramdeen tarnished the entire UNC party and brought it into disrepute, odium, hatred and disgrace.

And on the other hand, if the corruption and bribery charges are not decided in their favour in our courts under due process, Ramlogan and Ramdeen – incidentally two very brilliant lawyers – will carry forever the allegation of shameful and disgraceful stains upon their names.

And this is in spite of the sacrosanct principle that they are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

But for now the allegations of corruption made by Nelson against Ramlogan and Ramdeen matter not: the burning issue is that the indemnity agreement is capable of sinking all the players who participated in, advised and encouraged the making of this “monster."

Due process of the law must be followed, bearing in mind that no former AG is above the law, be it Ramlogan or Al-Rawi.

We, the people, must bear in mind and remind the political rulers of our country that the preamble to our Constitution recognises that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law.

There is no respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law if a former AG and Senator conspired with a King’s Counsel, then Queen’s Counsel, to facilitate him with taxpayers’ money for kickbacks to the AG and the AG received the kickbacks.

Also, there is no respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law if a sitting AG deliberately entered into an illegal contract (such as an indemnity agreement) with massive inducements and promises of pardon to encourage/and induce the King’s Counsel to give evidence.

It is troubling and instructive that LATT, in its request for information from Armour, asked, "Why did the former attorney general enter into an agreement with a potential witness in a serious criminal matter involving a political opponent which requires the parties to conceal evidence from Parliament?”

The CBA congratulates the LATT for its belated queries to Armour and its request for very important information which will eventually impact upon Al-Rawi.

Israel B Rajah-Khan, SC, is head of the Criminal Bar Association.