COME CLEAN SIR: Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC. –
ATTORNEY General Reginald Armour, SC, has questions to answer on the role of his predecessor, Faris Al-Rawi, over the controversial collapse of the case against former UNC attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen.
The questions come from the Law Association (LATT) which on Friday broke its silence two weeks after Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, announced the discontinuance of the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
The association’s statement came after heavy criticisms from the legal fraternity and the Opposition for its “deafening silence” over the collapse of the case and shocking revelations that the State’s main witness, convicted King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson, was unwilling to testify at this time.
In announcing the decision to discontinue the case, Gaspard said Nelson was unwilling to give evidence until a civil claim he has filed against the Government, for breach of an indemnity agreement, is determined.
Rural Development and Local Government Minister Al-Rawi, as the then AG, signed the agreement on behalf of Government.
Nelson, 64, is suing for over $96 million saying he suffered 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.
In its statement on Friday, the association said it refrained, over the last two weeks, from commenting as “each day disclosed even more startling revelations.”
It admitted being unable to comment on all issues but it has questions for Armour, warning that the absence of a full and robust explanation and response from him “will encourage speculation of wrongdoing or covering up of wrongdoing.”
In a three-page statement, the 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.
INDEMNITY DEAL HIGHLY UNUSUAL
It said that high public office holders must operate within and respect the boundaries of their respective offices.
Pointing out that the AG can lawfully receive information on criminal activities from any source, the association said Armour must say if Al-Rawi had any involvement, or participation, in the collection of evidence for the purpose of prosecution.
Former AG Faris Al-Rawi. FILE PHOTOS –
“It is our view that the signing of an indemnity agreement in 2017, was highly unusual and made more worrying because it appears that Mr Vincent Nelson, KC, continued to be the recipient of financial benefits from Government after it was signed; moreover, the alleged agreement appears to contemplate additional benefits to the proposed witness,” the LATT statement said.
Pointing to clause 4 of the Nelson indemnity agreement, the LATT said this clause contained an undertaking by a political office holder to make recommendations to the DPP on criminal proceedings against Nelson, and also on Al-Rawi’s agreement to conceal information from Parliament – TT’s highest court.
“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.”
The LATT said the DPP’s office, constitutionally protected and independent, is the only office under the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Act authorised to negotiate plea agreements.
“Having reviewed the DPP’s statement to the court regarding the discontinuance, we are of the considered view that the DPP acted within his constitutional authority.
“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.”
The LATT said another “worrying issue” was that money was paid to Nelson’s attorneys.
According to information provided to police by Al-Rawi, as of July 2021, Nelson’s attorneys including his UK solicitors and then local attorney Roger Kawalsingh, have been paid over $8.4 million.
Kawalsingh was paid by cheque for invoices dated January 18, 2018-September 28, 2020, totalling over $4.7 million.
The LATT said those were only some of the serious issues it and the general public are concerned so it is “absolutely essential” that AG Armour, in his role as guardian of the public interest, breaks his silence and issues a full and unambiguous statement on these matters. Armour is also the titular head of the bar.
CALL FOR ANSWERS
In a statement on Wednesday, the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) identified five issues of concern coming out of the collapse of the case.
They included the Al-Rawi’s conduct; circumvention of the Plea Bargaining Act; terms of the purported indemnity deal; the role of Nelson’s former attorney Kawalsingh and payment of fees to the latter.
The Assembly of Southern Lawyers has also weighed in on the matter, expressing concern over the indemnity agreement and the role Al-Rawi played.
The assembly said it was particularly concerned about the indemnity agreement as “it now appears that this was done without the knowledge or consent of the DPP.
“Matters in the public domain regarding the immunity agreement with Mr Vincent Nelson have raised serious questions about public officials acting outside of their remit.
“These are matters of significant public concern and interest. Our citizens deserve answers,” the assembly said in a release.
Senior Counsel Martin Daly, a former LATT president, minced no words in his condemnation of the débâcle going so far as to condemn Al-Rawi and also take a swipe at Armour for the latter’s statement immediately after DPP Gaspard announced the collapse of the case.
Daly accused Al-Rawi of improperly inserting himself way too far into the dealings with Nelson.
At a media conference last week, Al-Rawi admitted to the 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.
The Prime Minister has also distanced himself and the Cabinet, saying they had no role in the issue. Dr Rowley said as PM, he had no involvement or role in the prosecution of anyone and if a person wanted to turn State witness, it had nothing to do with the Cabinet.
LATT’S QUES TO ARMOUR
* Did former AG Al-Rawi participate or was involved in actual collection of evidence for the purposes of prosecution?
* Did Nelson continue to receive legal fees from Govt after he made a statement against interest in a criminal investigation?
* Were fees referred to in the indemnity agreement, related to fees that were procured in a manner that was subject to criminal investigation, and/or the subject of the statement against interest made by Nelson?
* Did Al-Rawi in procuring the indemnity agreement, negotiated a plea agreement, which is the exclusive remit of the DPP?
* Why did Al-Rawi enter into an agreement with a potential witness in a serious criminal matter, involving a political opponent (of the Govt) which requires parties to conceal evidence from Parliament?
* Can a detailed account of all funds paid to Nelson and his proxies, servants or agents, arising out of the indemnity agreement together with appropriate vouching and justification, including legal fees, fines or outstanding fees taxes or liens paid on his behalf, be made public?
Discussion about this post