PNM’s public relations officer Faris Al-Rawi says the move for him to step aside in PNM leader Keith Rowley’s Section 34 case has removed any obstacle to reach the truth of the matter. “And I feel vindicated by Senior Counsel Reginald Armour’s advice that it is pellucidly clear I have no issues to answer,” Al-Rawi added yesterday.
He was asked his position after a PNM statement on Sunday which said PNM leader Keith Rowley had changed his legal team and Al-Rawi had stepped aside as instructing attorney in the Section 34 defamation law suit brought by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan. Last week Monday, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar had called attention to Al-Rawi’s role as witness and attorney in the issue. She said it was in breach of the Legal Profession Act and queried if the Law Association’s (LATT) disciplinary committee would pronounce on it.
Subsequently Martin Daly, SC, last Sunday said after having been shown Al-Rawi’s 12-page statement, “if it (the document) is the witness statement to which the Prime Minister was referring then the statements on paragraph 38 are completely at odds with the professional independence of an instructing attorney. “Mr Al-Rawi would be well advised to consider taking himself off the record in the matter.” The PNM’s statement on Al-Rawi was released that day also.
On his view of the situation, Al-Rawi said yesterday’s Express headline — that Al Rawi had been removed by Rowley — was “sensational and wrong.” He said he had removed himself and stepped aside and had been exonerated by advice from Senior Counsel Reginald Armour that he had not committed any act of criminal misconduct. Asked about statements Daly had made — that he (Al- Rawi) should have recused himself — Al-Rawi said Daly didn’t look at the entire file of the case, had given an “off- the-cuff comment and didn’t have the full facts
“He hasn’t rendered legal advice,” Al-Rawi said . On the PNM’s move, Al-Rawi added: “We have now instead called the Prime Minister’s bluff and removed her busy body intervention from this case by eliminating the possibility of any delay in getting to the heart of the section 34 matter.” Al-Rawi said neither Ramlogan or his attorney Deborah Peake, a former Law Association Disciplinary Committee vice-chairman, had complained about the issue the PM had and to lodge any complaint to the association’s disciplinary team, one had to have legal standing in a matter.
He said what she had done was tantamount to interfering in the administration of justice and questioned where she had obtained a copy of his witness statement which she had displayed last week ,saying she may “well be guilty of professional misconduct.”
Al-Rawi also said a High Court ruling by Justice Vashist Kokaram, which COP leader Prakash Ramadhar said last week showed he (Al-Rawi) could not be attorney and witness in a case, was inapplicable in the current matter since the Kokaram issue dealt with barrister/advocate and not instructing attorneys. Yesterday, Armour, who is contesting the post of LATT president, against incumbent Seenath Jairam SC, was asked yesterday if successful, how he would handle any conflict of interest which may arise with his client’s cases.
Armour said he would absolutely recuse himself if such occurred. “If particular matter arises while I am LATT president involving Dr Rowley, I may have to disqualify myself,” he added. He said if the Section 34 matter came for discussion before the Law Association and hard positions have to be taken, he would disclose to council the matters he was representing Rowley in and depending on discussions would disqualify himself and allow vice-president Gerry Brooks to take the helm.