PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC—An AA High Court judge Friday dismissed the constitutional claim filed by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan regarding his criminal prosecution for alleged witness tampering, clearing the way for the matter to proceed in the magistrate’s court.
Justice Nadia Kangaroo said there were no breaches of Ramlogan’s constitutional rights as the State acted within the legal boundaries.
Justice Kangaroo also dismissed Ramlogan’s claim of entitlement to compensation for alleged breaches of his rights, saying, “The court has not found that the claimant has established a breach of his rights.” The former attorney general was ordered to pay the Attorney General’s costs in defending the claim.
Ramlogan was charged in 2017 with misbehavior in public office and obstruction of justice. The charges follow allegations made by the director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), David West, that Ramlogan had approached him to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation case against then-opposition leader Dr. Keith Rowley in 2014 in exchange for being appointed as PCA director.
Ramlogan, who was the youngest person to be appointed attorney general in 2010 at the age of 37, is accused of obstructing justice by using threats and bribery to persuade West not to give evidence in Ramlogan’s defamation case against Rowley.
Romlogan, who was removed from the cabinet in 2015, is also accused of misbehaving in public office by improperly endeavoring for West not to testify on Rowley’s behalf. The offenses allegedly took place in 2014 while he was attorney general.
The offenses allegedly occurred in October 2014 while former police commissioner Gary Griffith, also a witness in the case, served as national security minister.
Shortly after former acting police commissioner Stephen Williams initiated an investigation into the allegations in February 2015, then-prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired Ramlogan and Griffith.
On July 11, 2022, when the preliminary inquiry into charges against Ramlogan was expected to begin, his attorneys asked for a referral to the High Court.
Former chief magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle agreed with the referral after she was told that if the challenge was successful, the State might not be able to continue prosecuting Ramlogan.
In his constitutional claim, Ramlogan contended his constitutional rights, including the rights to his private and family life, were breached when three High Court judges and a magistrate granted warrants to police to tap his telephone lines in 2019.
He also contended there was an “unlawful” issuance of warrants by one of the judges for the interception of communication data, the unlawful retrieval and collection of communications data warrants under the Interception of Communications Act (IOCA), and “the apparent bias” of the judge who issued five interception orders on May 14, 2019.
“The essence of these complaints is that the State misapplied primary legislation, namely the IOCA, to secure access to private telecommunications data belonging to the accused, and that upon this being pointed out, wrongfully and in bad faith misused the warrant process under Section 5 IOPEA (Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act),” the complaint said.
Justice Kangaroo said there was no appearance bias on the judge’s part. She also said Ramlogan had yet to demonstrate he suffered prejudice and that the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the warrants was not yet determined as a ruling on the evidential objections had been put on hold until she gave her verdict.
She referred to the complaint as a “jumping off the gun,” ruling that Ramlogan had full rights to a fair trial. He did not demonstrate any loss by obtaining the warrants, as the magistrate’s court had yet to rule on the evidential objections.
She said that after that was done if he had complaints, he could return to the High Court with another challenge.
In her ruling, delivered during a virtual court hearing, Justice Kangaroo also dismissed Ramlogan’s complaint of a conspiracy against him, finding there was “no malicious intent on the part of the police” to obtain the warrants.
She also said there was no evidence of an inability to defend himself, adding that the warrants were lawfully sought and that nothing precluded the police from obtaining such warrants if there was a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed.
and then 