PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – Former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and a former opposition legislator, Gerald Ramdeen, say they are not perturbed at the decision of the state to file a civil suit against them in a matter involving the Jamaican-born convicted British King’s Counsel, Vincent Nelson.
Last week, the state, through the Office of the Attorney General, filed a claim against Ramlogan and Ramdeen seeking reimbursement of money allegedly received in a legal-fees kickback conspiracy involving Nelson and unquantified damages.
The claim alleges the “kickback payments” amounted to £200,367 (One GBP=US1.27 cents) and names Ramdeen, Ramlogan, Nelson, and another person as the alleged conspirators. It also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, bribery, and violation of trust against the two.
But both Ramlogan and Ramdeen, who were members of the main opposition United National Congress (UNC), have dismissed the suit, with Ramlogan, who in 2010 became the youngest ever attorney general here at the age of 37, telling the Sunday Newsday newspaper “this is a naked and ridiculous abuse of power.
“It is a bogus case designed to bypass the Director of Public Prosecutions and re-litigate the collapsed criminal case,” said Ramlogan, fired in February 2015.
He said the government has “painted itself into an awkward corner” because Nelson has sued for over TT$100 million (One TT dollar=US$0.16 cents) to cash in on the secret indemnity agreement.
For his part, Ramdeen pledged “that the proceeds that I am awarded in this matter will be given to charity, and I look forward to a speedy determination.”
Ramlogan and Ramdeen were charged in 2019 with conspiring with Nelson for Ramlogan to misbehave in public office as attorney general by accepting money from Nelson as a reward for giving him state briefs.
The case against them was discontinued on October 10, 2022, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Roger Gaspard SC, because of Nelson’s unwillingness to testify.
The civil claim said that because of his alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, Ramlogan is liable to forfeit all, or part, of the sums he earned from November 5, 2011, including his salary. It also said Ramdeen was liable to lose all or part of the sums made by him from the same period.
The claim discloses Nelson’s statement on October 26, 2017, before he pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehavior in public office, and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption relating to a legal fee kickback conspiracy.
There were notations of bank transfers between accounts in Trinidad and Tobago, a Natwest Bank in the United Kingdom, and a Jamaican bank. He alleged he agreed to pay 10 percent of the gross fees he received from any work done for the government of Trinidad and Tobago.
Nelson was indicted in May 2019 and entered a plea deal with the Office of the DPP, which included an agreement that he would testify against Ramlogan and Ramdeen. He was convicted on June 4, 2019, sentenced on March 2, 2020, and ordered to pay TT$2.25 million in fines.
But on October 31, Nelson filed a notice of appeal to set aside his conviction and sentence. His appeal alleges that events leading up to the plea deal with the DPP were an abuse of power and a breach of a promise not to prosecute.
The claim against Ramlogan and Ramdeen also repeats much of what Nelson gave in his statements when he pleaded guilty and the notarized statement he gave to former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi on November 16, 2017, in which he set out the alleged conspiracy.
Al-Rawi, however, has denied liability under the indemnity agreement.
The claim against Ramlogan and Ramdeen contends the “conspirators and each of them knew of the facts which gave rise to the relevant unlawfulness,” in particular through the discussion that took place at the Office of the Attorney General in 2011, but also through the actual payment and receipt of the monies between 2011 and 2014.
It also maintains the state is entitled to all documents and information on the retention of attorneys. At the same time, Ramlogan was attorney general, and any accounts were used to determine the full extent of any “unauthorized gains.”
“The claimant is entitled to any accounts or inquiries necessary to determine the amount and location of any such traceable process.”
and then 