THE PICTURE almost defies belief.

A former attorney general is charged with corruption and conspiracy.

But the case collapses after it emerges the main witness wishes not to recant, but to withhold his testimony because of an alleged breach of a secret indemnity entered into with another former attorney general.

That agreement appears to have been made at some stage before another agreement, a statutory plea-bargaining arrangement, between the witness and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

It is also the case that the witness had, at the onset, sued the State for legal fees owed to him.

Most worrisomely, those fees are reportedly settled only after the witness provides a statement incriminating the former attorney general and only after obtaining his own indemnity. (The indemnity was further initialled after charges were brought.)

In the circumstances, any reasonable person would question the weight to be ascribed to the evidence of such a witness, and indeed, the representations of all the political players involved.

And yet a sitting attorney general, apparently reviewing all the facts, this week expresses 'surprise' and says the dropping of the case is 'a stunning development.'

The Cabinet's chief legal adviser also tells the public he will 'recover any possible proceeds of the crimes allegedly committed.'

He places great faith in the fact that the witness has not recanted his testimony, even as this witness, a king's counsel, has acted in a manner that suggests he regards his testimony as his personal property, to be used by the State only in the way he approves and under the terms he dictates - an extraordinary stance for a lawyer to take.

The Prime Minister, meanwhile, attacks the media, attacks the opposition, and tries to distance his administration from the foul affair, even as it touches at least three individuals seated around his Cabinet table, all of whom, under our Constitution, are wedded to his own authority.

'Improper' - that is the word used by DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, to describe any move that would associate his office with the purported indemnity arrangement and its potential progeny as overseen by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi.

Mr Al-Rawi on at least two occasions sought advice from Mr Gaspard, apparently concerned about 'undue influence' on the case, even though his actions might be interpreted as raising that prospect.

Mr Gaspard, it turns out, had good reason to be cautious. Under our law, there is a criminal offence called 'improper inducement' when it comes to people who have entered plea deals.

The picture almost defies belief indeed. But only 'almost,' because, yet again in our history, this country must endure a scandal premised on official secrecy and what could be seen as a flagrant disregard for the separation of powers.

The post No indemnity over bacchanal appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.