ELEVEN promises were allegedly made by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi to convicted King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson in exchange for his testimony against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen.

These alleged promises were itemised in a 36-page letter Nelson sent to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, on Wednesday. Nelson wants the DPP to appeal his 2019 conviction and 2020 sentence – in which he was ordered to pay $2.25 million in fines.

The promises, according to Nelson, are contained in the indemnity agreement between himself and Al-Rawi on behalf of the Government.

“The State made promises to Mr Nelson to induce him to enter into the indemnity. The promises were relied upon by Mr Nelson. The promises made to Mr Nelson pursuant to the indemnity have been discharged by him, while the State has now expressly reneged on the promises that were made on its behalf.

“In those circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a miscarriage of justice to allow the conviction to stand where the fundamental basis for the provision of the notarised statement and subsequent convictions has now been repudiated by the State as unlawful and in breach of public policy.”

It is the State’s defence of the $96 million civil claim filed by Nelson that the indemnity agreement was “illegal as being against public policy” to agree not to disclose Nelson’s notarised statement to law enforcement bodies. The State also contends it would be illegal, contrary to public policy and unenforceable to compensate him for any damage suffered.

Nelson’s letter insists that Al-Rawi gave “express undertakings” he would not be prosecuted. In law, undertakings are legally binding promises which carries severe consequences if breached.

The letter said after the final promise was made to Nelson – which concerned payment to him – it was at this point that Nelson “decided to tell the full story of the inducements and threats.”

This, the letter said, was heightened by what was described as the DPP’s one-sided presentation to Justice Malcolm Holdip who sentenced Nelson in March 2020 in a plea deal agreement with the State.

The letter said the DPP’s statements to the court “gave the impression” the evidence Nelson provided was because of police investigations and not the indemnity and his statement.

It said Nelson was also wrongly advised he could not withdraw his guilty plea despite the plea agreement legislation allowing for it to be done any time before sentence “if a plea deal was entered as a result of an improper inducement.”

It further alleged that he was prevented from issuing a statement to the media setting out the truth that led to his prosecution. “Again, the advice that there was no ‘turning back’ once the plea was entered, was wrong in law.”

Three pages were dedicated to the plea agreement with the DPP and two to the High Court proceedings before Holdip in May 2019 and February 2020. They detailed what Nelson believes the DPP should have done as a minister o