tidings
COME CLEAN LORD: Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC. –
Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, has questions to answer about his predecessor Faris Al-Rawi’s role in the controversial collapse of the case against former UNC Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, SC and former UNC Sen. Gerald Ramdeen.
The questions come from the Law Society (LATT), which on Friday broke its silence two weeks after Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, announced the discontinuation of the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
The association’s statement came after heavy criticism from the legal fraternity and the opposition for a “deafening silence” over the case being dropped 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 sever the case, Gaspard said Nelson was unwilling to testify pending the determination of a civil claim he has filed against the government for breach of an indemnity agreement.
The Minister of Rural Development and Local Government Al-Rawi, as the then PA, signed the agreement on behalf of the Government.
Nelson, 64, is suing for more than $96 million, saying he suffered loss of income after being fired 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 UK authorities make demands on him for alleged unpaid taxes.
In its statement on Friday, the association said it had refrained, over the past two weeks, from commenting as “every day revealed even more startling revelations”.
He admitted he was unable to comment on all matters but has questions for Armour, warning that the lack of a full and robust explanation and response from him “will encourage speculation of wrongdoing or a cover-up of wrongdoing”.
In a three-page statement, LATT admitted it was unable to determine whether there was corruption, abuse of public office or politically motivated prosecutions of any public official, politician or lawyer.
AGREEMENT FOR UNUSUAL TESTIMONY
He said that holders of high public office should act within and respect the boundaries of their respective offices.
Noting that the AG can legally obtain information on criminal activities from any source, the association said Armor should say whether Al-Rawi had any involvement or participation in gathering evidence for prosecution purposes.
Former AG Faris Al-Rawi. FILE PHOTO –
“It is our view that the signing of an indemnity agreement in 2017 was highly unusual and made more concerning because it appears that Mr. Vincent Nelson, KC, continued to be the recipient of financial benefits from the Government after its signature; furthermore, the alleged agreement appears to provide for additional benefits to the proposed witness,” the LATT statement said.
Pointing to clause 4 of Nelson’s indemnity agreement, LATT said this clause contains an undertaking by a political office holder to make recommendations to the DPP on criminal proceedings against Nelson, and also on the Al-Rawi agreement to hide information from Parliament – the highest of the TT. court.
“If there was such an agreement between a holder of political office and a potential witness in criminal proceedings, it was simply wrong; Investigations and prosecutions must not have any political taint.”
LATT said the DPP’s constitutionally protected and independent office is the only office under the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Bargaining) Act authorized to negotiate plea deals.
“After reviewing the DPA’s statement in court regarding the termination, we are of the opinion that the DPA acted within its constitutional authority.
“However, we cannot ignore the fact that the absence of the witness from the prosecutorial process seems to have been related to a compensation agreement which he concluded with the former general prosecutor, Mr. Faris Al-Rawi in 2017, and it appears that an alleged Breach of this indemnity agreement led, primarily, to the termination of the criminal proceedings.”
LATT said another “matter of concern” was that the money was paid to Nelson’s lawyers.
According to information provided to police by Al-Rawi, as of July 2021, Nelson’s lawyers, including his UK lawyers and then local lawyer Roger Kawalsingh, have been paid over $8.4 million.
Kawalsingh was paid by check for invoices dated January 18, 2018-September 28, 2020, totaling more than $4.7 million.
LATT said these were just some of the serious issues of concern to it and the general public, so it was “absolutely essential” that AG Armour, in his role as guardian of the public interest, break his silence and issue a statement of full and clear on these issues. Armor 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 stemming from the fallout from the case.
They included the conduct of El-Rawi; bypassing the plea agreement Act; the terms of the purported indemnification agreement; the role of Nelson Kawalsingh’s ex-lawyer and the payment of fees to the latter.
The Southern Bar Association has also weighed in on the matter, expressing concern over the compensation deal and the role Al-Rawi played.
The assembly said it was particularly concerned about the compensation agreement as “it now appears that this was done without the knowledge or consent of the DPP.
See also
“Issues in the public domain regarding the immunity agreement with Mr. Vincent Nelson have raised serious questions about public officials acting outside their powers.
“These are matters of great public interest and concern. Our citizens deserve answers”, says the announcement of the Assembly.
Senior Counsel Martin Daly, a former president of LATT, did not mince words in his condemnation of the argument going so far as to condemn Al-Rawi and also hit out at Armor for the latter’s statement shortly after DPP Gaspard announced the collapse of the case .
Daly accused Al-Rawi of mistakenly inserting himself too far into the relationship with Nelson.
In a press conference last week, Al-Rawi accepted the compensation agreement between the government and Nelson, but said he did not advise himself on its preparation.
He said the deal was made after the AG’s Office hired two top lawyers in 2017 when Nelson came forward with information about the alleged criminal conspiracy to defraud the state.
Even the prime minister has distanced himself from the government cabinet, saying that they had no role in this matter. Dr Rowley said as Prime Minister, he had no involvement or role in prosecuting anyone and if a person wanted to become a State’s witness, it was none of the Cabinet’s business.
LATT’S QUESTIONS FOR ARMORERS
* Has former AG Al-Rawi participated or been involved in the actual collection of evidence for prosecution purposes?
* Did Nelson continue to receive legal fees from the Govt after making a declaration against interest in a criminal investigation?
* Were the 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 a declaration of interest made by Nelson?
* Did Al-Rawi negotiate in procuring the indemnity agreement for a plea agreement, which is the exclusive purview of the DPP?
* Why did Al-Rawi enter into a deal with a potential witness in a serious criminal case involving a political opponent (of the government) who wants the parties to withhold evidence from Parliament?
* Can an itemized account be made of all funds paid to Nelson and its representatives, servants or agents arising from the indemnification agreement together with proper warranty and justification, including legal fees, fines or taxes unpaid fees or obligations paid on his public behalf?
