Mr DPP, what is the difference between the media and Prime Minister?

By Capil Bissoon

Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi is now declining to publicly comment on the pending criminal prosecution case against former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and Attorney Gerald Ramdeen with regards to the indemnity agreement he signed with the State’s main witness British Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson. “The sub judice rule applies here to protect the fairness of the criminal process which might be affected by undue publicity.”

However, this did not stop the Head of the Executive, Prime Minister Keith Rowley for publicly speaking about this case at a PNM virtual meeting on Friday evening.

Rowley is quoted in the media as saying, “You know who Nelson is? Nelson is a British Queen’s Counsel… no ordinary person, a British Queen’s Counsel who, in the hands of his lawyers, turns State witness to extricate facts and figures, date and time, telling T&T, cooperating with us, so police could put in handcuffs members of the cabinet of Kamla Persad-Bissessar for public money that had gone missing.”

None of the matters that Rowley is speaking about has been tested in a court of law.

The Prime Minister does not have the liberty to comment or refer to any matter that is before the courts.

“Nelson is a British Queen’s Counsel… no ordinary person, a British Queen’s Counsel…” is irrelevant since his conduct will form part of the criminal proceedings against the two accused.

Can Messrs. Ramlogan and Ramdeen believe that they will be afforded a fair trial with the Head of the Executive actually trying their case in the public domain?

The separation of the Executive and the judiciary means that Ministers are prevented commenting on judicial decisions, whether generally or in relation to the evidence, individuals and specifics of any case.

This is a criminal matter which falls under the purview of Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, it is somewhat strange that the DPP has not cautioned the Prime Minister not to prejudice any trial.

Gaspard has been very vocal whenever he thought there were attempts to prejudice any trial directly or indirectly. Some of the very public warnings from Gaspard were to the media over pretrial publicity in the case of 11 men charged with murder of former special State prosecutor Dana Seetahal as well as against publishing material that could implicate persons in criminal matters before their cases go to court.

One recalls another warning Gaspard issued to the media when Ian Alleyne, (former) host of TV6’s Crime Watch, has been released on bail. Alleyne had spent the weekend in custody after being charged under the Sexual Offences Act following television broadcasts allegedly showing a mentally ill teenage girl’s rape.

Mr DPP, what is the difference between the media and Prime Minister?

The same warning issued to the media in April 2012 that prejudicing any trial “would constitute an unwelcome and unfortunate interference with the due administration of justice and may properly provide a sufficient basis upon which a citation for contempt may be fastened” should also be publicly issued to the Prime Minister.

Or is the Prime Minister exempt from such warnings?