For Chaguanas West MP, Dinesh Rambally, lawyers led by Kiel Taklalsingh that supported a motion of no-confidence against Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, (AG) at the Law Association of TT (LATT) on Friday, should be commended.
Rambally also called for LATT to release the official transcript of the special general meeting held by the association on July 15. The meeting was held at the Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain and members attended and voted both in-person and virtually.
The association’s members were asked to vote on two motions: the no-confidence motion and whether a call should be made for Armour to resign. The motions were filed against Armour over his role in an ongoing United States civil asset recovery case related to fraud allegations in the construction of the Piarco International Airport. Taklalsingh and company argued that AG, as the titular head of the bar, had brought the legal profession into disrepute with his conduct in the matter.
Out of a total of 551 financial members that participated, 317 voted against the no-confidence motion while 234 in support it.
A total of 241 voted for and 310 voted against the call for Armour to resign.
At the UNC's weekly press briefing on Sunday, Rambally said some members who spoke in Armour’s defence were chairmen of certain state-controlled or owned entities.
He said Armour admitted in the meeting that he misstated the full extent of his representation of previous client and former minister Brain Kuei Tung and apologised to his colleagues in the legal profession. Rambally said there was a recognition by Armour that he had done wrong.
“I am eagerly awaiting the official transcript/record of the SGM from the council of the Law Association. It is important that the public sees the statement of the AG containing the apology he made to members of the legal profession. Additionally, contributions made by the various speakers should be digested, discussed and commented upon by members of the public.”
He added, based on the statements of some senior members of the bar, the AG was able to mount a successful defence using considerations such as age and lapse of memory, testimonials from colleagues that “he was a good boy,” and there were bigger problems to deal with in comparison with the infraction under review.
Rambally said the attorneys who piloted the motions against Armour used the only tool that was available to them to hold the titular head of the profession to account.
“It is clear, as Attorney General, you cannot be hauled before the disciplinary committee, it is clear he cannot be moved in other circumstances, there is just no device under the Legal Profession Act to do that and the reason for that is when you put that person there, they are representing the titular head.”
He said Armour’s role demands much more of him.
Rambally said some junior lawyers were of the view that they were not seeing those standards set by him and it did not paint a good picture for the practice of the profession.
Even though the lawyers’ motions did n
