PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – The Jamaican-born British King’s Counsel, Vincent Nelson, has lost an appeal against his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit corruption and money laundering.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Nolan Bereaux, James Aboud, and Geoffrey Henderson, affirmed an earlier decision by Justice Mark Mohammed, who had refused to extend the time for Nelson to file his appeal.
In delivering the panel’s decision on Monday, Justice Henderson said, “The Court thinks, therefore, that no satisfactory or convincing reasons have been proffered which justify the lengthy delay in this case.”
Nelson was convicted on June 4, 2019, after pleading guilty to conspiring with former attorney general Anand Ramlogan SC and attorney Gerald Ramdeen to give rewards to Ramlogan corruptly, and to conspire to launder those funds.
He was subsequently sentenced on March 2, 2020, by then-High Court Judge Malcolm Holdip to pay a fine of TT$2.25 million (One TT dollar=US$0.16 cents) or, in default, face three years of hard labour. Nelson’s application for leave to appeal was filed significantly out of time on October 31, 2023.
He had argued in his appeal that the circumstances leading to his plea agreement constituted an abuse of process and executive power, and a breach of a promise not to prosecute.
He alleged that the then attorney general, Faris Al-Rawi SC, had obtained a notarised statement from him through “improper inducements” that included promises of non-prosecution, non-disclosure of his statement, payment of outstanding fees, and an indemnity for any breach of the indemnity agreement.
Nelson also claimed he was threatened with the withholding of his outstanding fees if he did not provide the statement.
In October 2017, Nelson provided a notarised statement in which he alleged that Ramlogan demanded 10 per cent of the legal fees Nelson received for representing the State and State companies between 2010 and 2015. He claimed that Ramdeen acted as an intermediary by collecting the funds and passing them on to Ramlogan.
Almost a month later, Nelson signed an indemnity agreement with Al-Rawi. The document stated that Nelson’s statement would not be made public, including through Parliamentary debate.
The case against Nelson dates back to the 2010-15 period when the People’s Partnership government was in office and Nelson provided legal services to the coalition government.
But following a change in government in 2015, Nelson struggled to receive payment for his work. In September 2017, he confided in his attorney, Roger Kawalsingh, about alleged “kickbacks” demanded by Ramlogan and Ramdeen for his legal work.
This information was subsequently relayed to Al-Rawi, and Nelson claimed the former attorney general offered to facilitate payment of his outstanding fees in exchange for a notarised statement detailing the kickbacks. Facing a cancer diagnosis and in need of funds for medical treatment, Nelson agreed, but insisted on a contractual indemnity from the Trinidad and Tobago government.
An Indemnity Agreement was formalised in November 2017 between Al-Rawi and Nelson, which, among other terms, stated that Al-Rawi would “recommend to the DPP… that no criminal proceedings be commenced against you” and that Nelson’s evidence would not be disclosed.
Following this, Nelson received outstanding payments totaling an estimated TT$10 million. However, in alleged breach of this agreement, the notarised statement was disclosed to the National Crime Agency (NCA) of the United Kingdom (UK) by the Trinidad and Tobago government, leading to a criminal investigation against Nelson, which Trinidad and Tobago later took over.
Nelson also asserted that Al-Rawi had promised him a Presidential Pardon within one month of his sentence if he were prosecuted in Trinidad and Tobago.
Despite these alleged inducements, Nelson entered into a plea agreement with the State on May 2, 2019, agreeing to plead guilty to the corruption and money laundering charges in exchange for a non-custodial sentence. He pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit misbehaviour in public office, which the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) later discontinued.
Justice Mohammed, in his July 2024 decision refusing the extension of time, found the reasons for the nearly four-and-a-half-year delay in filing the appeal to be “neither convincing nor weighty.”.
Justice Mohammed also found no identifiable act by the DPP that amounted to an abuse of process, underscoring the constitutional independence of the DPP’s office.
He said that Nelson voluntarily accepted the plea agreement, even after realising that the DPP was not honouring all the promises made by Al-Rawi, and did not raise the alleged inducements with the trial judge.
When the matter came up before the Court of Appeal panel, Nelson’s legal team argued that Justice Mohammed erred in his findings, particularly concerning the alleged executive misconduct of Al-Rawi.
They also cited Nelson’s illness and the discontinuance of proceedings against Ramdeen and Ramlogan in October 2022 as justifications for the delay.
But the Office of the DPP maintained that Nelson had no arguable case and failed to provide compelling reasons for the delay. They argued that Nelson voluntarily provided the notarised statement and that the alleged inducements were terms he formulated.
The DPP office also argued that an attorney general lacks the authority to promise immunity from prosecution, as this discretion resides solely with the constitutionally independent DPP.
In its ruling, the Appeal Court said that the expectation that Nelson would receive a pardon one month after sentence does not account for a delay of three years after it had become apparent that a pardon was not forthcoming.
“Further, this Court is of the view that a discontinuation of proceedings against Mr. Ramdeen and Mr. Ramlogan does not bolster the Applicant’s explanation for the delay in making his application.”
The Court also noted the safeguards within the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Act, 2017, designed to ensure that plea agreements are voluntary and free from improper inducements.
In October 2022, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Roger Gaspard, SC, discontinued the corruption case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen due to Nelson’s refusal to testify while his lawsuit and appeal remain unresolved.
In 2024, Nelson said he was seeking TT$96 million in a civil claim for compensation for an alleged breach of an indemnity agreement to protect him from prosecution.
and then 