LOUIS WILLIAMS

I AM GREATLY dismayed by the attempt by certain members of the legal profession and others to pin the 'stink' for the substantive issue of the alleged bribery scandal flowing from the revelations of Vincent Nelson, KC, on the Government, via a process of deflection akin to victim-blaming.

Make no mistake, the reputation of the local legal profession stands to be severely tarnished by the disclosures of Nelson, if proven true in a court of law, especially since one of the people accused of wrongdoing by Nelson was the then incumbent Attorney General of TT at the time the alleged offences were committed. Nelson has already confessed to his role in this sordid affair and has accepted the judgment of the local courts, having regard to a plea deal he made with the DPP.

There appears to be a concerted attempt to salvage the reputation of the legal profession by making the Government the fall guy. There is little or no reference to the very substantive claim made by Nelson. Instead, there is an almost exclusive reliance on whether or not the AG's office should involve itself in any (civil) indemnity agreement with someone who comes forward and confesses to his role in such a matter and seeks the best deal possible for himself in exchange for information on alleged other perpetrators and instigators of a very serious white-collar crime.

It seems that the parties, based on the wording of the relevant document, accepted that the DPP has exclusive authority regarding the prosecution of people for alleged criminal offences, and that the AG has no role in such matters. Therefore, Nelson had to negotiate separately a plea agreement with the DPP.

However, the indemnity agreement served a very useful purpose in that, among other things, it protected Nelson from the possible forfeiture of past earnings, quite a substantial sum. Without this prior agreement, it is doubtful Nelson would have been as forthcoming with the Office of the DPP and would have entered into the said plea agreement with that office. The indemnity agreement was the 'sweetener,' which is now being litigated in the civil courts.

Nelson has indicated that he is not prepared to testify in any criminal proceedings brought against Messrs Ramdeen and Ramlogan while the civil matter concerning the indemnity agreement is before the court.

But that to my mind does not change the price of cocoa. Nelson is a cancer survivor. What if he had died? He made certain admissions in his 'criminal trial' and possibly in his documented statement(s) to the DPP, so couldn't that be entered into evidence? What about the information in the indemnity agreement, as published in the local media, couldn't that be entered into evidence?

Nelson was quite detailed and specific about his communication with Ramdeen and Ramlogan and, more importantly, he gave details of the sums he forwarded to a specific individual including bank account number, etc. That information is easily verifiable.

H