State witness and whistleblower Vincent Nelson is claiming then-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi promised a presidential pardon would be given to him if he gave evidence against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and attorney Gerald Ramdeen.
Nelson has taken legal action against the Attorney General for breach of a November 2017 indemnity agreement.
In his statement of claim filed in the court on June 27, 2022, by attorney Shankar Bidaisee, Nelson made several claims, among them that his Trinidad and Tobago attorney (Roger Kawalsingh) had discussions with the DPP about his case and that Government Minister Stuart Young had a conversation with him on an airplane, indicating that he (Young) did not share Nelson’s notarised statement with the United Kingdom National Crime Agency (NCA) which triggered criminal investigations into Nelson in that jurisdiction.
Nelson is seeking in excess of TT$100 million, citing that Al-Rawi acted maliciously and with ulterior motives for political purposes.
Last Monday, the DPP discontinued criminal charges against Ramlogan and Ramdeen, a former United National Congress senator, noting that Nelson has refused to give evidence until his civil claim against the AG is completed.
Applications for the unsealing of Nelson’s civil claim have been made by Nelson himself, as well as Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
In May 2019, Nelson was indicted on three charges for conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption. He entered a plea deal with the DPP and the misbehaviour charge was dropped.
In March 2020, Justice Malcolm Holdip sentenced Nelson and ordered him to pay TT$2.5 million in fines.
Claim detailed
Nelson’s civil claim details all the dealing that took place dating back to 2016, and the deals made for him to give evidence against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
He stated that former AG Al-Rawi, by way of the indemnity agreement, undertook that Nelson would not be prosecuted and that all his legal expenses would be taken care of by the State.
He also claimed Al-Rawi indicated that a presidential pardon would be given to him.
The claim stated there were several breaches of the indemnity agreement:
1. Clause 4 of the indemnity agreement states that the AG undertakes to recommend to the DPP that no criminal proceedings be taken against Nelson.
The claim stated that this clause was breached as Al-Rawi imposed a pre-condition on Nelson which he had to fulfil prior to a recommendation being made.
2. The former AG’s external attorney Dharmendra Punawasee indicated to Nelson in a November 5, 2018, letter that he was instructed that Nelson was to make a “self-incriminating” statement to the NCA/Crown Prosecution Service of the UK which could be utilised by the prosecuting authorities in T&T, and that Nelson undertook to give evidence in T&T in accordance with that self-incriminating evidence and the notarised statement.
3. On November 20, 2018, Nelson’s T&T attorney (Kawalsingh) spoke to Al-Rawi on the phone and informed him that Nelson cooperating with the NCA/CPS would result in him being prosecuted in the UK.
4. The claim stated that Al-Rawi’s actions “pressurised” Nelson into making further “self-incriminating” statements to give as evidence against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
Meeting at
ex-AG’s home
The claim stated that Nelson’s attorney met with Al-Rawi at his home.
“On 24th November, 2018, the Claimant’s T&T attorney met with Al-Rawi at the latter’s house,” stated the claim.
It added that Al-Rawi was informed that due to disclosure of the notarised statement to the NCA, Nelson was being treated as a “suspect” under the Bribery Act and likely to be prosecuted and imprisoned in the UK.
“It was emphasised to Al-Rawi that such a prosecution would not be beneficial to him (Al-Rawi) and Nelson would not give any evidence in the UK or T&T against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
The claim stated that Al-Rawi told Nelson’s attorney that the only option open to him to secure Nelson’s evidence was get the NCA to cede its investigation into Nelson and, upon this, Al-Rawi would recommend to the DPP that Nelson be prosecuted in T&T and that there be a recommendation to the court that there be no imprisonment of Nelson if he gave evidence against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.
Pardon
promise
The claim stated further that “a pardon would be fast-tracked to be provided within one month of the claimant being sentenced on the condition that the claimant give evidence against Mr Ramlogan and Mr Ramdeen”.
It stated further it was agreed that Nelson would be fully compensated for his losses and that he would not be prosecuted in the UK.
The claim went on the detail the specifics of the pardon, claiming that Al-Rawi had secured the Government’s support for this.
The claim stated that Nelson’s attorney, via text on June 18, 2019, confirmed the “defendant had communicated that the GORTT (Government of T&T) had agreed on granting of the requisite pardon”.
According to the claim, Al-Rawi also indicated that he had the support of the Pardon Committee.
The Express understands that the Mercy Committee, which is chaired by the AG, comprises the DPP and the National Security Minister, who put forward pardons to the President.
Nelson’s claim states, “The Claimant will rely, inter alia, on the confirmation by text from the Claimant’s T&T attorney to the Claimant dated 25 January 2020, whereby he stated that, absent the agreement of the DPP to pardon within a month of sentencing, ‘the other members (of the pardon committee) will agree from what I understand’.”
The claim stated that Nelson asked if this was enough and his attorney replied “yes”.
The claim noted that in January 2020, the DPP stated that Nelson’s notarised statement was not disclosed to him until January 2019.
It stated that on February 14, 2019, Nelson was informed by his attorney that Al-Rawi informed him that he (Al-Rawi) “and the DPP were working together to send a letter to the NCA for the ceding of the criminal investigation and prosecution” of Nelson.
The claim stated that Nelson was of the reasonable belief that Al-Rawi had “actioned his plan” with respect to ensuring that Nelson was prosecuted in T&T to avoid prosecution and imprisonment in the UK, that Al-Rawi ensured that a pardon would be granted to Nelson one month after he was sentenced, and that Al-Rawi would pay Nelson full monetary compensation pursuant to the indemnity after sentencing.
The claim stated that Al-Rawi was successful in getting the NCA to cede to the State of T&T the criminal investigation and Nelson’s attorney was allowed to read such correspondence indicating this.
Conversation
with the DPP
The claim also disclosed that Kawalsingh had conversations with the DPP.
“On 10th April 2019, the Claimant’s attorney at law informed him that ‘The DPP and I spoke and he has no issue with Tom speaking to Jenkins as we want everything to flow smoothly. ‘Tom’ is the Queen’s counsel appointed by the Claimant to represent him in the investigation by the NCA. Mr Jenkins is the QC appointed by the DPP for the purposes of prosecuting the Claimant.”
Conversation with
Young on plane
The claim stated that on October 5, 2018, the NCA advised Nelson in writing that it was in possession of a notarised statement that he was subject of a criminal investigation pursuant to the UK Bribery Act and that they required to interview him.
It stated that Nelson’s attorney and Al-Rawi had exchanged text messages about this, and Al-Rawi was aware of what was going on.
“At all material times the Defendant (Al-Rawi) had informed the Claimant’s T&T attorney at law that Stuart Young, then a Minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General had wrongly disclosed the notarised statement without his knowledge and/or permission,” stated the claim.
It went on to point out that Nelson asked Young about this after the Minister engaged him in conversation.
“Stuart Young and the Claimant were both on a British Airways flight from Trinidad and Tobago to London Gatwick in March 2020, following the Claimant’s conviction and sentencing by the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. Stuart Young came to the Claimant’s seat to converse.
“The Claimant informed Stuart Young that the Defendant had informed the Claimant’s attorney that the Notarised Statement had been disclosed by Young. The latter replied that, as a lawyer, he ‘wouldn’t be so stupid’ because he knew it would be a breach of the ‘Agreement’.
“The fact of this conversation and Young’s denial of disclosure is recorded in a text message sent by the Claimant to his attorney on 5th March, 2020,” stated the claim.
