Derek Achong

The Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) has been giv­en a one-week ex­ten­sion to re­spond to a re­quest from King’s Coun­sel Vin­cent Nel­son to ap­peal his con­vic­tion and cor­re­spond­ing sen­tence for his role in an al­leged le­gal fee kick­back scheme with for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, and Op­po­si­tion Sen­a­tor Ger­ald Ramdeen.

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that the DPP’s Of­fice was sched­uled to re­spond to Nel­son’s re­quest late last week but re­quest­ed the ex­ten­sion, which was even­tu­al­ly ap­proved by his at­tor­neys Ed­ward Fitzger­ald, KC, and Varun De­bideen.

In their orig­i­nal cor­re­spon­dence in mid-March, Fitzger­ald and De­bideen called on DPP Roger Gas­pard, SC, to ap­peal his con­vic­tion based on the Gov­ern­ment reneg­ing on its al­leged promis­es to him un­der an in­dem­ni­ty agree­ment with for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al and cur­rent Rur­al De­vel­op­ment and Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Min­is­ter Faris Al-Rawi.

They said, “In those cir­cum­stances, it would be fun­da­men­tal­ly un­fair and a mis­car­riage of jus­tice to al­low the con­vic­tion to stand where the fun­da­men­tal ba­sis for the pro­vi­sion of the no­tarised state­ment and sub­se­quent con­vic­tions has now been re­pu­di­at­ed by the State as un­law­ful and in breach of pub­lic pol­i­cy.”

Un­der the terms of the agree­ment, Al-Rawi, as le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Gov­ern­ment, agreed that Nel­son’s state­ment, which was used to ini­ti­ate the in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen, would not be re­leased in­to the pub­lic do­main, in­clud­ing through Par­lia­men­tary de­bate.

While it stat­ed that the state­ment would be dis­closed to the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) and the An­ti-Cor­rup­tion In­ves­ti­ga­tion Bu­reau (ACIB), it not­ed it would not be dis­closed to pros­e­cut­ing, tax en­force­ment, reg­u­la­to­ry or dis­ci­pli­nary au­thor­i­ties out­side of T&T.

It al­so promised that no civ­il lit­i­ga­tion to re­coup fees paid to him would be tak­en against him with re­gard to the state­ment.

Al-Rawi al­so agreed to make rep­re­sen­ta­tions to the DPP’s Of­fice for him not to be pros­e­cut­ed.

The agree­ment al­so sought to in­dem­ni­fy Nel­son from any lit­i­ga­tion over the al­le­ga­tions con­tained in the state­ment, which it ac­knowl­edged may be chal­lenged for defama­tion.

Al-Rawi has al­so de­nied any wrong­do­ing in re­la­tion to the in­dem­ni­ty agree­ment as he claimed that it was done on the ad­vice of Se­nior Coun­sel Dou­glas Mendes and Gilbert Pe­ter­son.

The plea made to DPP Gas­pard is sep­a­rate from Nel­son’s on­go­ing $96 mil­lion law­suit against the State over al­leged breach­es of the in­dem­ni­ty agree­ment in­clud­ing his state­ment be­ing giv­en to the Unit­ed King­dom’s Na­tion­al Crime Agency (NCA).

Nel­son is claim­ing that he suf­fered sig­nif­i­cant loss­es based on the agree­ment as he was ex­pelled from his pres­ti­gious Unit­ed King­dom law firm and may face fines from UK tax au­thor­i­ties for un­paid tax­es.

In de­fence of the law­suit, the State has con­tend­ed that the agree­ment is il­le­gal, un­en­force­able, and con­trary to pub­lic pol­i­cy.

In 2019, Ram­lo­gan, Ramdeen, and Nel­son were charged with con­spir­ing to­geth­er to re­ceive, con­ceal and trans­fer crim­i­nal prop­er­ty name­ly the re­wards giv­en to Ram­lo­gan by Nel­son for be­ing ap­point­ed to rep­re­sent the State in sev­er­al cas­es; of con­spir­ing to­geth­er to cor­rupt­ly give Ram­lo­gan a per­cent­age of the funds and of con­spir­ing with to make Ram­lo­gan mis­be­have in pub­lic of­fice by re­ceiv­ing the funds.

Short­ly af­ter be­ing charged, Nel­son en­tered in­to a plea agree­ment with the DPP’s Of­fice in ex­change for his tes­ti­mo­ny against Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen.

In March 2020, High Court Judge Mal­colm Holdip up­held the plea agree­ment and is­sued a to­tal of $2.25 mil­lion in fines to Nel­son for his role in the al­leged con­spir­a­cy.

Un­der his plea agree­ment, the con­spir­a­cy to com­mit mis­be­hav­iour in pub­lic of­fice charge was dropped and he was fined for the oth­er two of­fences.

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that Nel­son is yet to pay the fines, which he claims should be paid by the State as part of the agree­ment, as he ben­e­fit­ed from suc­ces­sive gen­er­al ex­ten­sions which were giv­en dur­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic.

The lat­est ex­tend­ed dead­line for pay­ing the fines, un­der prac­tice di­rec­tions is­sued by Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie, is Ju­ly 31.

In Oc­to­ber, last year, DPP Gas­pard an­nounced his de­ci­sion to dis­con­tin­ue the case against Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen be­fore Chief Mag­is­trate Maria Bus­by-Ear­le-Cad­dle.

He claimed it was due to Nel­son’s re­luc­tance to tes­ti­fy be­fore the de­ter­mi­na­tion of his civ­il law­suit over the al­leged breach of the in­dem­ni­ty agree­ment.

How­ev­er, Gas­pard in­di­cat­ed that the charges may be re­in­stat­ed af­ter Nel­son’s law­suit is de­ter­mined.