Court clears way for prosecution of former attorney general for alleged obstruction of witness testimony

News

Jada Loutoo

An hour ago

A Supreme Court judge has dismissed a constitutional challenge filed by former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan over his prosecution for alleged witness tampering. Judge Nadia Kangaloo issued the ruling on July 5. It clears the way for criminal charges against Ramlogan to be heard in a district court.

In 2017, Ramlogan was charged with misconduct in public office and obstructing the course of justice.

The charge against him follows an allegation by Police Complaints Authority (PCA) director David West that Ramlogan asked him to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation case against then-Opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley in 2014 in exchange for being appointed director of the PCA.

The former attorney general is accused of obstructing justice by using threats and bribery to persuade West not to testify in Ramlogan’s defamation case against Rowley.

He was also charged with misconduct in a public office by unsuccessfully trying to prevent West from testifying on Rowley’s behalf, an offense that allegedly occurred in 2014 when he was attorney general.

The offences allegedly took place in October 2014 when former Police Commissioner Gary Griffith, who was also a witness in the case, was serving as Minister of National Security.

Shortly after former acting police commissioner Stephen Williams launched an investigation into the allegations in February 2015, then-prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired Ramlogan and Griffith.

In her ruling, Kangaloo found there was no violation of Ramlogan’s constitutional rights as the state had acted within legal limits.

On July 11, 2022, when a preliminary inquiry into the allegations against Ramlogan was expected to begin, his lawyers asked for the case to be referred to the Supreme Court. Former Chief Justice Maria Busby Earle-Caddle agreed to the referral after being told that if the challenge was successful, the state may not be able to continue prosecuting Ramlogan.

In his constitutional claim, Ramlogan claimed that his constitutional rights, including the right to private and family life, were violated when three High Court judges and one judicial officer issued police warrants to tap his telephone lines in 2019.

He also claimed that one judge made “unlawful” communications interception orders; orders for the unlawful taking and collection of communications data under the Interception of Communications Act (IOCA) and “obvious bias” by a judge who made five interception orders on 14 May 2019.

“The essence of these complaints is that the State misapplied a fundamental statute, namely the IOCA, to secure access to the defendant’s private telecommunications data and that, once that was brought to its attention, it unlawfully and in bad faith abused the order process under Section 5 of the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Inquiry) Act (IOCA),” the complaint reads.

Kangaloo also said the judge had no bias regarding appearance. She also said Ramlogan had not yet shown that he had suffered harm. She also said the admissibility of evidence obtained under the orders had not yet been determined because a ruling on evidentiary objections had been stayed pending her ruling. She described the complaint as “overkill.”

She also ruled that Ramlogan had every right to a fair trial, nor had he shown that he had suffered any loss as a result of obtaining the orders, because the district court had not yet ruled on the evidentiary charges. She said that after that happens, if he has complaints, he can return to the Supreme Court with another challenge.

In her ruling, read out during a virtual hearing, Kangaloo also dismissed Ramlogan’s complaint of a conspiracy against him as she found that “the police had no malicious intent” in obtaining the arrest warrants.

She also added that there was no evidence that the accused was unable to defend himself and that the arrest warrants were issued in accordance with the law and there was nothing to prevent the police from obtaining such warrants if there was a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed.

Kangaloo also dismissed his claim for compensation for alleged violations of his rights. “The court did not find that the plaintiff proved the violation of his rights.”

Ramlogan and former UNC Senator Gerald Ramdeen also face criminal charges in connection with an alleged bribery conspiracy involving legal fees with Jamaican King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson. They were indicted in 2019, but those charges were withdrawn by Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, on October 10, 2022, after Nelson declined to testify against them until the end of his civil case for alleged breach of an indemnity agreement with the government.

Ramlogan’s legal team was led by King’s Counsel Peter Carter, while Ian Benjamin, SC, and Tekiya Jorsling represented the DPP. Senior Counsel Rishi Dass led Raphael Ajodhi and Kendra Mark-Gordon led the Attorney General.

Ramlogan was ordered to pay the costs of defending the AG against the claim. The DPP was an interested party in the case.