(Trinidad Express) Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass has said that her independent office is under “political” attack, and she has threatened to haul Attorney General Reginald Armour before the courts should the State refuse to pay the legal costs for her to defend herself in this regard.
A pre-action protocol letter dated April 29, 2024, has been sent to Armour by Freedom Law Chambers, headed by former AG Anand Ramlogan, SC, on behalf of the Auditor General.
It thanked Armour for a letter he sent on (April 29) whereby he (Armour) clarified that when he indicated the Auditor General should seek independent legal counsel, it was “limited to the specific issue of whether she was required to consider the amended national accounts”.
The pre-action letter noted that the Auditor General had turned to Armour for legal advice, and he replied that it would be “inappropriate” for him to do so, and he was already advising the Finance Minister on the controversy.
The pre-action letter to Armour states that Ramdass has been subjected to “malicious” and “political” attacks from Armour himself and Finance Minister Colm Imbert, and it would be a “conflict of interest” for Armour to now offer her legal representation.
It added that there would be “political bias” if he tries to select counsel for her.
The Finance Ministry has already issued a pre-action protocol letter to the Auditor General with respect to this ongoing imbroglio.
The pre-action protocol letter from Freedom Law Chambers to Armour on Monday noted that the Auditor General is up against a “powerful and esteemed battery of lawyers”, in the person of Douglas Mendes, SC, Simon de la Bastide, Kendra Mark-Gordon and Armour himself, and that they collectively have over 128 years of legal experience.
“Given the powerful battery of lawyers advising the State, it would be tantamount to using a legal sledgehammer to batter an ant of a public officer into political submission,” stated the letter.
Political attack
An urgent response was requested (by 4 p.m. yesterday—April 30) as Freedom Law Chambers noted that “time is of essence”, given that a motion seeking to extend the time to submit accounts to the Auditor General was debated in the Senate on Monday, and “further statements” were made in that debate that are of “grave concern” to Ramdass.
It stated that failure to respond would result in the filing of a claim for judicial review on account of Armour’s “inaction and failure to render a decision to seek declaratory relief with respect to the unfair treatment of our client, breach of her constitutional rights to equality of treatment and protection of the law, a declaration that the independence of her office has been compromised and breached, a declaration that she has been treated unfairly and an order directing the State to pay her reasonable legal costs incurred in connection with this matter,”
The preaction protocol letter was dispatched to Armour on the very day Imbert delivered a statement in the Senate announcing that an independent investigation will be launched into the “very serious accusations of improper conduct” made by the Auditor General, through Freedom Law Chambers, against the Minister of Finance and/or officials of the Ministry of Finance.
The pre-action letter to Armour, signed by attorney Aasha Ramlal, noted Imbert’s refusal to table the Auditor General’s report and instead moved a motion to extend the time to submit public accounts to the Auditor General and for the Auditor General to complete the report.
The letter further stated that a “scathing attack” was made by Armour and Imbert on the “character and integrity” of the Auditor General during the debate of this motion on April 26.
“The Auditor General sees this as a political attack on the independence and integrity of her office because it concerns the performance of her constitutional and statutory duties. It was also an attempt to vilify and assassinate her personal and professional reputation,” stated the letter.
The pre-action stated that the Auditor General is concerned to ensure that the independence and integrity of the office is not compromised by these unwarranted and unjustified political attacks.
“She wishes to defend her office and herself against these malicious attacks and is therefore entitled to be represented by counsel of her choice”, stated the letter, adding that the Auditor General sits on par with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Ombudsman and the service commissions, which are all similarly protected from political influence and control.
The lawyers stated that given the contentious matters and disputes that have arisen between the Government and the Auditor General, it is obvious that it will be patently unfair to ask that the Auditor General either retains independent counsel of her choice at her personal expense or that the Government, through the Attorney General, selects and imposes counsel of his choice and liking (if not political preference) to represent the Auditor General.
“The possibility of political bias is obvious,” the letter stated.
The letter further noted that Armour had indicated to the Auditor General that he was advising the Finance Minister, and it would be inappropriate for him to render advice to her.
The pre-action stated that it would obviously be equally inappropriate for Armour to render any advice to the Auditor General on the other issues that have since arisen in this matter.
“There would be a serious conflict of interest and a strong risk of political bias. Given that you (Armour) spearheaded the attack against our client in Parliament and made statements which she considers to be false, malicious and misleading, it is obvious that the Government through you cannot fairly be permitted to select counsel to represent her,” stated the letter.
It continued, “We therefore write to enquire whether you would be prepared to pay reasonable legal fees that would necessarily be incurred by the Auditor General for legal representation in this matter in which we have been instructed.”
The issues
The pre-action letter also itemised the issues for which the Auditor General has sought legal advice and representation:
1. The legal validity of the resolution passed by Parliament purporting to extend the time for the submission of the national accounts and her report in circumstances where she has already submitted her audit report to the Minister of Finance.
2. The false and misleading statements made in Parliament against her regarding the performance of her official duty.
3. Whether the cloak of parliamentary privilege could be pierced in the exceptional circumstances of this case, such that Mr Reginald Armour, SC, and Mr Colm Imbert can be sued for defaming the Auditor General.
4. Whether the Minister of Finance acted lawfully in refusing to lay the Report of the Auditor General in Parliament when called upon to do so by the Speaker on Friday, April 26, 2024.
5. What options and remedies in law may be open to the Auditor General to have her report laid in Parliament and protect the integrity and independence of her office from the intrusive political tentacles that have appeared.
6. The scope and remit of her right under the Constitution, the act and the laws of Trinidad and Tobago.
