Appeal Court reserves judgement in matter involving Jamaica-born attorney

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) — The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement in a case in which the Jamaican-born British King's Counsel Vincent Nelson has filed a lawsuit alleging breaches of an indemnity agreement he entered into to implicate former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and attorney Gerald Ramdeen in an alleged legal fee kickback scheme. In October 2017, Nelson provided a statement in which he claimed that Ramlogan had demanded that he pay him 10 per cent of the legal fees he received for representing the state and state companies during Ramlogan’s tenure between 2010 and 2015. He said Ramdeen served as the intermediary by allegedly collecting the funds and paying them over to Ramlogan.

Almost a month later, Nelson entered into an indemnity agreement with former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi. In the document, Al-Rawi, as the legal representative of the government, agreed that Nelson’s statement would not be released into the public domain, including through parliamentary debate. While the Court of Appeal did not set a date for its ruling, Justice Gillian Lucky said that the court usually delivers its judgments within six months of an appeal being heard.

Lawyers completed their submissions on Tuesday. Nelson, in his appeal, is claiming that High Court Judge Justice Jacqueline Wilson was wrong to reject his case seeking almost TT$100 million (One TT dollar=US$0.16 cents) in damages based on his loss of earnings after he entered into the agreement in 2017. Nelson, who made his submissions on Tuesday, said that damage to his professional reputation was a foreseeable consequence of his involvement as an informant being made public.

He told the Appeal Court that Justice Wilson was wrong to refuse to find that the professional damage he suffered was not directly connected to minor breaches of the agreement between him and Al-Rawi, adding that the agreement was broadly drafted and intended to cover a wide range of possible outcomes. “If it was within the scope of the indemnity agreement, then remoteness does not apply,” Nelson said, suggesting that the agreement had to be upheld; otherwise, it would undermine the state’s ability to convince informers and whistle-blowers to testify. “No informer would come forward if they have no protection,” Nelson said.

But in response, King's Counsel Tom Poole said that Nelson’s prosecution by the Office of the Di…