JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, May 8, 2025

QC Nelson receives payment before turning State witness

by

Derek Achong
1403 days ago
20210704
Vincent Nelson

Vincent Nelson

Ja­maican-born British Queen’s Coun­sel Vin­cent Nel­son re­ceived al­most $11 mil­lion in out­stand­ing le­gal fees from the State over a year be­fore he agreed to serve as its main wit­ness in a le­gal fee kick­back cor­rup­tion case against for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, and for­mer op­po­si­tion sen­a­tor Ger­ald Ramdeen.

Ac­cord­ing to doc­u­ments over le­gal fees paid to pri­vate prac­ti­tion­ers by the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al over the past six years, which were laid in Par­lia­ment on Fri­day, Nel­son was paid $10,230,502.96 be­tween 2017 and 2018 and $768,718.50 be­tween 2018 and 2019.

This was in ad­di­tion to the $40,671,814.26 he re­ceived be­tween 2010 and 2015.

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that in 2016, Nel­son sued the state over a £1.5 mil­lion re­tain­er con­tract agreed be­tween him and the AG’s Of­fice in No­vem­ber 2014 to rep­re­sent the Board of In­land Rev­enue (BIR) in a se­ries of tax ap­peals against en­er­gy com­pa­ny BP Trinidad and To­ba­go (bpTT).

The re­tain­er in­clud­ed all fees as­so­ci­at­ed with the ap­peals in­clud­ing trav­el ex­pens­es and it was agreed that he be paid in ten pay­ments of £150,000.

Nel­son on­ly re­ceived three of the month­ly pay­ments and was forced to file the law­suit to re­cov­er the re­main­der.

In his ev­i­dence in the case, Nel­son ad­mit­ted that the re­tain­er was cho­sen to en­sure that there would be no is­sue with re­pay­ment in the event that there was a change of Gov­ern­ment af­ter the gen­er­al elec­tion in Sep­tem­ber 2015.

At the time, the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al strong­ly op­posed Nel­son’s claim and ap­plied to High Court Judge Ricky Rahim to strike out the law­suit at a pre­lim­i­nary stage for it be­ing an abuse of process.

On Oc­to­ber 6, 2017, Rahim dis­missed the ap­pli­ca­tion as he dis­agreed that seg­ments of the Le­gal Pro­fes­sion Act (LPA), which on­ly gives at­tor­neys the pow­er to sue their clients for un­paid fees in cir­cum­stances where the fees in­voiced were in­de­pen­dent­ly as­sessed by a High Court Mas­ter or Reg­is­trar, ap­plied.

He al­so not­ed that the is­sues raised in the law­suit need­ed to go to tri­al, as the AG’s Of­fice was at the time claim­ing that Nel­son breached his re­tain­er con­tract by fail­ing to com­plete the tasks agreed up­on, as the BIR cas­es were set­tled with­out a full hear­ing as ini­tial­ly an­tic­i­pat­ed.

“These mat­ters can on­ly be de­cid­ed if they are raised in a de­fence and the is­sues are tried. It how­ev­er ap­pears to this court that the de­fen­dant has ac­cept­ed that a re­tain­er was en­tered in­to for the pay­ment of the fees,” Rahim said as he gave the AG’s Of­fice an ex­ten­sion to file its de­fence to the law­suit.

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that the AG’s Of­fice ap­pealed Rahim’s rul­ing but it was sub­se­quent­ly with­drawn be­fore it was heard by the Court of Ap­peal.

On May 2, 2019, Nel­son, Ram­lo­gan, and Ramdeen were slapped with three cor­rup­tion charges.

The trio was ac­cused of 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.

It was lat­er re­vealed that Nel­son had en­tered in­to a plea agree­ment with the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) in ex­change for his tes­ti­mo­ny against Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen.

In March, last year, 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.

Holdip fined Nel­son $250,000 for al­leged­ly con­spir­ing with Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen, to breach Sec­tion 3 of the Pre­ven­tion of Cor­rup­tion Act, which crim­i­nalis­es cor­rup­tion through bribery.

He was fined $2 mil­lion for al­leged­ly con­spir­ing with the duo to breach Sec­tion 45 of the Pro­ceeds of Crime Act, which crim­i­nalis­es the con­ceal­ment of the pro­ceeds of crime.

Un­der his plea agree­ment, the con­spir­a­cy to com­mit mis­be­hav­iour in pub­lic of­fice charge was dropped.

As part of his sen­tence, Holdip said that Nel­son, who had been in pro­tec­tive cus­tody dur­ing his vis­its to Trinidad for the in­ves­ti­ga­tion and sen­tenc­ing, was free to re­turn to the Unit­ed King­dom while he cleared the fines un­der a 10-month court-ap­proved pay­ment plan.

He was al­so placed on a $250,000 bond to keep the peace for three years.

Last De­cem­ber, the DPP’s Of­fice in­di­cat­ed that it would be fil­ing in­dict­ments against Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen di­rect­ly in the High Court in­stead of do­ing so af­ter a pro­tract­ed pre­lim­i­nary in­quiry, which could take sev­er­al months or over a year to com­plete.

Con­tact­ed yes­ter­day, Al-Rawi de­clined to com­ment on whether the pay­ments made to Nel­son dur­ing his tenure were re­lat­ed to the dis­con­tin­ued case be­fore Rahim.

He was care­ful to note that the doc­u­ments laid in Par­lia­ment did not specif­i­cal­ly iden­ti­fy the work per­formed by pri­vate at­tor­neys or the pe­ri­od it was done, on­ly the fees paid to them.

He al­so de­clined to com­ment on any per­ceived link to the pend­ing case against Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen so as to avoid caus­ing any un­due pre-tri­al pub­lic­i­ty.

“That is a mat­ter in the DPP’s Of­fice. Go and ask him,” Al-Rawi said.

In­stead, Al-Rawi chose to fo­cus on the suc­cess­es achieved by his of­fice dur­ing his tenure as he point­ed to the sub­stan­tial re­duc­tion in the to­tal fees paid to pri­vate at­tor­neys.

In to­tal, be­tween 2015 and this year, $410.5 mil­lion was spent as com­pared to $494,848,294.22 be­tween 2010 and 2015.

Al-Rawi not­ed that of the mon­ey ex­pend­ed dur­ing his tenure, over $122 mil­lion was spent to clear debts to at­tor­neys in­curred dur­ing the pre­vi­ous Peo­ple’s Part­ner­ship Gov­ern­ment. Al­most $149 mil­lion was ex­pend­ed sole­ly for and at the dis­cre­tion of the DPP’s Of­fice.

Al-Rawi stat­ed that de­spite the min­i­mal bud­get, his of­fice was still able to op­er­a­tionalise sev­er­al pieces of im­por­tant leg­is­la­tion and es­tab­lish the Pub­lic De­fend­ers’ De­part­ment in ad­di­tion to pur­su­ing a ro­bust leg­isla­tive agen­da.

It was al­so able to re­tain com­pe­tent at­tor­neys to de­fend the State in 1,075 cas­es, Al-Rawi said.

The is­sue over the fees was raised in Par­lia­ment’s Stand­ing Fi­nance Com­mit­tee (SFC) meet­ing, last month.

Al-Rawi ini­tial­ly de­clined to pub­lish the names of at­tor­neys who worked for the State and the fees they re­ceived as he claimed that he had re­ceived le­gal ad­vice from Se­nior Coun­sel Fyard Ho­sein over the is­sue.

Fol­low­ing the state­ment, po­lit­i­cal and so­cial ac­tivist Ravi Bal­go­b­in Ma­haraj threat­ened le­gal ac­tion over the dis­clo­sure and his lawyers ques­tioned the ad­vice giv­en by Ho­sein.

“It cre­ates the per­cep­tion that you were seek­ing ad­vice to sup­port a pre­con­ceived po­si­tion against dis­clo­sure of this in­for­ma­tion from a per­son who would ben­e­fit fi­nan­cial­ly from the same,” Ma­haraj’s lawyer Ganesh Sa­roop said, in the let­ter ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia.

The doc­u­ments sub­se­quent­ly dis­closed showed that be­tween 2015 and last year, Ho­sein re­ceived al­most $17 mil­lion in le­gal fees as com­pared to a lit­tle over $1 mil­lion be­tween 2010 and 2015.

In dis­clos­ing the fees in Par­lia­ment on Fri­day, Al-Rawi not­ed that Cab­i­net had made the de­ci­sion af­ter in­form­ing the ben­e­fi­cia­ries of the pro­posed move.

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that a pro­por­tion of the fees spent be­tween 2010 and 2015 may al­so be for ser­vices per­formed pri­or to the pe­ri­od as with the ar­rears in­her­it­ed by Al-Rawi.

The fees do not in­clude those in­curred by State boards and for Com­mis­sions of En­quiries.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored