Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, has renewed his call for a criminal investigation into exorbitant legal fees paid to attorneys by the Office of the Attorney General.
His call came a day after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said in Parliament that Government would not be initiating an enquiry into the legal fees mixup.
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley had raised the issue in Parliament on Friday, saying a probe was necessary given the discrepancies associated with the $408 million in legal fee expenditure, a figure which soared from $338 million after the AG’s office probed complaints by lawyers that fees attributed to them, as presented in Parliament recently, were inaccurate and in some cases represented double payments.
Attorney General Garvin Nicholas recently announced that an error had led to the initial $338 million figure announced but he noted the failure initially to include foreign legal fee payments, thus bumping the figure up to over $400 million after a review.
During a press conference at his San Fernando chambers yesterday, Maharaj said on Friday a letter signed by himself and fellow former attorney general John Jeremie was sent to acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams calling for a criminal investigation into the matter.
“Yesterday we sent that joint letter to the acting Commissioner of Police and we are calling on the acting Commissioner of Police to conduct a police probe.”
Maharaj said if they received no response from Williams in three days they would make the letter available to the media and the public. He said the PM’s decision not to probe the fee mixup suggested that she knew about the payment.
Without pointing to the guilt or innocence of anyone, he said, in the letter they pointed out facts in the matter which they felt warranted a police inquiry.
“What we are saying is that what was disclosed in those figures are sufficient for any government to support an inquiry and the fact that the Prime Minister has turned a blind eye to what are contained in those figures is inferential evidence, in my view, that the Prime Minister had known of the figures, of the amounts being paid and she did nothing about it. So it would appear that the Prime Minister aided and abetted in the payment of those fees,” he said.
In answer to a question, Maharaj said it was a criminal offence for a prime minister or a government minister to interfere with the discretion of the police or try to influence the outcome of an investigation.
Saying he felt strongly about the matter, Maharaj said if Williams failed to launch an investigation “we will take the battle to another place.”
What the letter raised
The three-page letter dated April 17, which the Sunday Guardian obtained, stated that when one examined the tentative calls made by the past solicitor general for a criminal investigation into aspects of the operations of the Office of the Attorney General, “we feel confident that there is now sufficient evidence to launch a wide-ranging criminal investigation into whether provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Larceny Act might have been infringed.”
Maharaj and Jeremie drew reference to the spending patterns, mainly in relation to the following:
n The expenditure of $1.7 million on Tiger Capital Ltd, a firm in which a personal associate of Ramlogan was involved, as seen from the companies registry, that did work allegedly in support of work of the Central Authority.
n The sum of money paid to certain junior counsel who enjoyed a close relationship with the then AG, which were, from any viewpoint, exorbitant.
n A payment made in respect of advice on car allowances benefits, which is a matter in which the past AG had a well-publicised personal interest.
n A statement reported in the Trinidad Express of September 17, 2010, in an article written by Jensen Le Vende, in which Ramlogan is reported to have said that he was engaged in the practice of hiring persons to act as lawyers for the State on the basis of friendship.
The two former AGs wrote, “It is a criminal offence both at common law and by statute in this jurisdiction to use public office for the purpose of advancing the pecuniary interests of an office holders’ family or associates.”
They stated that a criminal probe into allegations of breaches of the Prevention of Corruption Act was likely to require both forensic support and support of the Central Authority, a department under the direct control of the AG.
“We respectfully suggest that the Police Service initiate this probe in concert with counterparts in foreign agencies, in particular the Criminal Division of the United States.”