Lessons AG must learn

ON FRIDAY, the Law Association met to debate and vote on a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Reginald Armour and a second motion calling on him to resign.

The motions were filed by a group of 40 attorneys to raise legal debate over the AG's disqualification from the 22-year-old Piarco Airport civil asset recovery case in Miami.

Mr Armour's flawed recollection of his role in the case prior to being appointed to Cabinet led to the disqualification of both the AG and Sequor Law, the US firm representing TT in the proceeding.

The lawsuit remains active and former AG Faris Al-Rawi is now the client representative. Sequor Law is challenging the judge's ruling.

It was an unimpressive start to Mr Armour's tenure as AG and triggered the humiliating no-confidence motion and call for his resignation just three months after his elevation to the role.

Both motions were voted down on Friday.

Of the 551 members of the association who voted at the special general meeting, both in-person and virtually, 317 voted against the no-confidence motion and 310 voted against the motion for the AG to resign.

Mr Armour, a former president of the association, attended the convocation and declared himself humbled by the outcome, thanking his legal colleagues for participating in the process.

But the AG would be mistaken to view this result as an endorsement of his work in the role to date.

Almost half of those present voted in favour of the motions and less than a quarter of the association's membership turned up to vote at all.

This challenge might have been raised on legal grounds, but Mr Armour should make no mistake, he is now immersed in politics and he walks a narrow, closely observed path between the demands of the letter of the law, his responsibilities to civil society and his fealty to justice delivered.

At his maiden press conference in June, Mr Armour found himself pressed by questions about the disqualification and stumbled through haughty deflections of these legitimate queries in a surprisingly unsophisticated engagement with the media.

Coming to his defence was the expected, the Prime Minister finally finding his voice to speak unequivocally in support of Mr Armour’s appointment, and the unexpected, as former justice minister Hubert Volney, fired over the section 34 legal amendment in 2012, declared his support of the AG's explanation.

Reginald Armour has a well-deserved and hard-earned reputation as one of this country's most capable legal minds.

In his short time as AG, he has had a robust and hopefully chastening instruction in the differences between the rule and execution of law in the courtroom and the expedience and fickleness of politics. One hopes he has learnt some harsh lessons.