A HIGH Court judge has dismissed the constitutional claim filed by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan relating to the criminal prosecution of him for alleged witness tampering. Justice Nadia Kangaloo delivered her ruling on July 5. This now clears the way for the criminal charges against Ramlogan to proceed in the magistrates’ court.
Ramlogan was charged in 2017 on charges of misbehaviour in public office and obstruction of justice.
The allegation against him surrounds an allegation by the director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West that he was approached by Ramlogan to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation case against then-opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley in 2014 in exchange for being appointed as PCA director.
The former attorney general is accused of obstructing justice by using threats and bribery to persuade West to not give evidence in Ramlogan’s defamation case against Rowley.
He is also accused of misbehaving in public office by improperly endeavouring for West not to testify on Rowley’s behalf. The offences are alleged to have taken place in 2014 while he was attorney general.
The offences allegedly occurred in October 2014, while former police commissioner Gary Griffith, who is also a witness in the case, was serving as national security minister.
Shortly after former acting police commissioner Stephen Williams initiated an investigation into the allegations in February 2015, then-prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired Ramlogan and Griffith.
In her ruling, Kangaloo said there were no breaches of Ramlogan’s constitutional rights as the State acted within the legal boundaries.
On July 11, 2022, when the preliminary inquiry into charges against Ramlogan was expected to begin, his attorneys asked for a referral to the High Court. Former chief magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle agreed with the referral after she was told if the challenge was successful, the State might not be able to continue to prosecute 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 to police to tap his telephone 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 on May 14, 2019.
“The essence of these complaints is that the State misapplied primary legislation, namely the IOCA, to secure access to private telecommunications data belonging to the accused, and that upon this being pointed out, wrongfully and in bad faith misused the warrant process under Section 5 IOPEA (Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act),” the complaint said.
Kangaloo also said there was no appearance bias on the part of the judge. She also said Ramlogan
