Senior Reporter
anna-lisa.paul@guardian.co.tt
The constitutional claim by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan regarding his criminal prosecution as it relates to alleged witness tampering has been dismissed by the High Court.
The ruling by Justice Nadia Kangaloo in the Port-of-Spain High Court now clears the way for authorities to proceed with criminal charges against Ramlogan at the level of the Magistrates’ Court.
Responding to the ruling hours later, Ramlogan told Guardian Media, “We intend to appeal the matter.”
Delivering the judgment in a virtual hearing yesterday, Kangaloo dismissed Ramlogan’s complaint that there was a conspiracy against him, as she found there was no malicious intent on the part of the police to obtain search warrants.
She also ruled there was no evidence of an inability by Ramlogan to defend himself, adding that the warrants were lawfully sought and nothing had precluded the police from obtaining such warrants if there was reasonable suspicion a crime had been committed.
Kangaloo also dismissed his claim of entitlement to compensation for alleged breaches of his rights as “the court has not found that the claimant has established a breach of his rights.”
Ramlogan was charged with misbehaviour in public office and obstruction of justice in 2017. The charges stemmed from Ramlogan’s alleged attempt to prevent David West from giving evidence against him in a defamation case against the then opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley in 2014, in exchange for being appointed as head of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA).
West currently holds the post of PCA director. Ramlogan had alleged that the State had violated certain constitutional rights when it collected evidence against him under the Interception of Communications Act and the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act.
He further alleged that one of the High Court judges who had granted ex parte warrants to the police under the Interception of Communications Act was biased against him.
Kangaloo, however, found no constitutional breaches had occurred as alleged by Ramlogan and that the allegation of bias could not be made out of the law or the facts.
As a result, she dismissed Ramlogan’s claim in its entirety and ordered the State’s costs to be paid by Ramlogan. The allegation against Ramlogan stemmed from claims by West that he was approached by Ramlogan to withdraw his witness statement in the defamation case against Rowley and that Ramlogan used threats and bribery to persuade him not to give evidence.
Ramlogan was accused of misbehaviour in public office as a result. The offences were alleged to have taken place in 2014 while Ramlogan held the post of AG, and while former police commissioner Gary Griffith, who is also a witness in the case, was serving as National Security minister.
Former acting police commissioner Stephen Williams launched an investigation in February 2015 after former prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired Ramlogan and Griffith, who had been members of her Cabinet.
Just as the preliminary inquiry into the charges against Ramlogan was expected to begin in 2022, his attorneys requested a referral to the High Court, and former Chief Magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle agreed after being told that if the challenge was successful, the State might not be able to continue with the prosecution against 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 for the police to tap his phone 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 in 2019.
In her ruling, Kangaloo said there was no apparent bias on the part of the judge and that Ramlogan had not yet demonstrated that he suffered prejudice. She said the issue surrounding the admissibility of the evidence obtained via the warrants had not yet been determined.
And while she acknowledged Ramlogan’s right to a fair trial, she said he had not demonstrated that he suffered any loss by obtaining the warrants, as the Magistrates’ Court was yet to rule on the evidential objections.
She said it was only after this was done that Ramlogan could return to the High Court if he had any other complaints.