Home / View Point / Guest Columns / Law Association showdown: Anand-led group aims to oust Armour and Brooks

Law Association showdown: Anand-led group aims to oust Armour and Brooks

Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC and vice-president Gerry Brooks will need the support of their membership to keep their respective positions, as they attempt to stave off a vote of no confidence instigated by a faction that includes former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan SC and past and present UNC Senators Wayne Sturge, Gerald Ramdeen and Robin Montano.

The fate of Armour and Brooks will be decided at a special general meeting on Monday 25 July from 3pm at the Hall of Justice’s Convocation Hall at Knox Street, Port of Spain.

Photo: Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC talks at the Transparency Institute conference on 8 March 2016. (Copyright Shaun Rambaran/forge.co.tt)
Photo: Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC talks at the Transparency Institute conference on 8 March 2016.
(Copyright Shaun Rambaran/forge.co.tt)

And, in his column today, prominent local attorney and former Independent Senator Martin Daly SC spoke dramatically about the stakes involved:

“The outcome of this meeting may determine the Association’s viability as an organisation with an influential voice on matters of pending legislation and civil liberties.”

The clash itself is, inescapably, a matter of partisan politics with either group pointing fingers at the other.

The dissenting attorneys argued that Armour and Brooks brought the legal body into disrepute by virtue of their interaction with Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi with regards to the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill.

The requisition, which was served to the LATT council on 30 June 2016, had two parts:

a) To call upon the President of the Law Association Mr Reginald Armour S.C. and the Vice President Mr Gerry Brooks to disclose to the members of the Law Association whether any substantive position was articulated to the Honourable Attorney General Mr Faris Al-Rawi, MP on behalf of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago regarding the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016 and if so what was articulated to the Honourable Attorney General? And if not, why not?

b) To move a motion for a vote of No Confidence in the President of the Law Association Mr Reginald Armour S.C. and the Vice President Mr Gerry Brooks for failing to consult with the membership of the Law Association to obtain its views on the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016 prior to meeting with the Honourable Attorney General being a Bill of grave public importance regarding the constitutional rights of citizens.

Photo: Former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan speaks in Parliament during the spell of the People's Partnership Government. (Courtesy Baltimore Post Examiner)
Photo: Former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan speaks in Parliament during the spell of the People’s Partnership Government.
(Courtesy Baltimore Post Examiner)

The requisition had 30 bar numbers and signatures attached and Rule 23 of the First Schedule to the Legal Profession Act states that any 25 financial members of the LATT request a special general meeting, which the council must call within 30 days.

One of the signatories, Robin Montano, was not a financial member of the body, which brought the dissenting group down to 29.

On 5 July, five days after the requisition, Armour responded and suggested that part (a) of the group’s claim was flawed and frivolous:

“In meeting with the Attorney General in April 2016 on the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016, the President and the Vice President did so with the full authority and knowledge of the Council of the Law Association, so as to draw to the Attorney General’s attention the concerns of Council on the Bill.

“The President and Vice President immediately thereafter reported the details of this meeting with the Attorney General to the Council by email and over the course of two meetings held in April and May 2016. With the approval of Council, the President posted a report of that meeting on the website of the Law Association.

“This represents the normal convention and protocol of the Law Association and was the same approach adopted most recently on the Anti-Gang and Bail legislation.”

Photo: Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC (centre) meets and greets at the Transparency Institute anti-corruption conference on 8 March 2016. (Copyright Shaun Rambaran/forge.co.tt)
Photo: Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC (centre) meets and greets at the Transparency Institute anti-corruption conference on 8 March 2016.
(Copyright Shaun Rambaran/forge.co.tt)

Two days later, the LATT took out an advertisement in the Trinidad Guardian newspaper which reproduced the requisition and listed all 30 signatories:

Robin Montano, Wayne Sturge, Alexia Romero, Joseph Sookoo, Danielle Rampersad, Kevin Lewis, Shirvani Ramkissoon, Abigail Roach-Thomas, Shanice Edwards, Adam Razack, Ravi Rajcoomar, Irshaad Ali, Indarjit Seuraj, Shivana Nath, Alisa Khan, Shivonne Francis, Collin Partap, Seana Baboolal, Jonathan Bhagan, Brent Hallpike, Devesh Ramdeo, Makeda Browne-Alfred, Jerry-Lee Ramkissoon-David, Jennifer Rogers, Alvin Pariagsingh, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Anand Ramlogan, Kent Samlal, Douglas Bayley and Gerald Ian Ramdeen.

Incidentally, Ravi Rajcoomar sat on the very Criminal Legislation Committee that helped craft the Law Association’s response to the SSA Bill, which Armour and Brooks took to Al-Rawi.

Rajcoomar abandoned the requisition on the very day of the Guardian advertisement and declared his “every confidence” in Brooks and Armour. The attorney, who claimed to be “somewhat surprised” at the no confidence motion, did not explain how his signature came to be attached to the document.

Four days later, seven more attorneys withdrew and claimed their signatures “were appended under a fundamental mistake or misapprehension on our part.” They also declared their trust and confidence in the LATT Council.

Photo: UNC Senator and attorney Wayne Sturge. (Copyright Newsday)
Photo: UNC Senator and attorney Wayne Sturge.
(Copyright Newsday)

Intriguingly, former People’s Partnership Minister in the Ministry of National Security and current legal advisor to the UNC, Collin Partap, was among this seven, which also included Alisa Khan, Shivana Nath, Irshaad Ali, Adam Razack, Shivonne Francis and Indarjit Seuraj. They gave a joint statement:

“We were under the impression that we were signing a petition requisitioning a meeting of the Law Association to discuss matters relating to the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016.

“Regretfully, at that time, we were unaware of the full nature and background of the requisition and in the event, therefore, when we signed the signature sheet, we had no intention whatsoever to requisition a meeting to censure anyone, to call upon anyone to account for their actions and/or to move a vote of no confidence against anyone.”

By Friday 22 July, the number of back-pedalling attorneys had risen to 12 as Seana Baboolal, Brent Hallpike, Makeda Browne-Alfred and Jerry Lee Ramkissoon-David also withdrew.

On 19 July, the Law Association spelt out its position on its interaction with the PNM Attorney General in a detailed response to its members:

Photo: PNM Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi. (Copyright Elections.TT)
Photo: PNM Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi.
(Copyright Elections.TT)
  • On 1 April 2016, the media first published information on the proposed SSA Bill. Three days later, Armour wrote to Al-Rawi—after obtaining a copy of the Bill from the Parliament’s website—and stated that the Law Association wished to comment on it. During that exchange, the LATT President learned that debate on the Bill would resume in the House of Representatives on 16 April, less than two weeks away.
  • Armour co-opted Rajcoomar and attorney Rishi Dass who both articulated their concerns by 11 April, which were then discussed in a Council meeting on 12 April. The new Council, incidentally, had only been elected on 20 March 2016 and was not gazetted until 3 May.
  • Armour and Brooks met with Al-Rawi on 13 April for a lengthy meeting. The Law Association president subsequently reported back to Council on 14 April and then officially on 10 May, which was the first meeting of the gazetted 30th Council.

On the eve of the special general meeting, there are just 17 attorneys left from the initial 30 dissenters, which would have been insufficient numbers to call the assembly in the first place. The attorneys who have not distanced themselves from the requisition are:

Wayne Sturge, Alexia Romero, Joseph Sookoo, Danielle Rampersad, Kevin Lewis, Shirvani Ramkissoon, Abigail Roach-Thomas, Shanice Edwards, Jonathan Bhagan, Devesh Ramdeo, Jennifer Rogers, Alvin Pariagsingh, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Anand Ramlogan, Kent Samlal, Douglas Bayley and Gerald Ian Ramdeen.

Photo: UNC Senator and attorney Gerald Ramdeen. (Copyright Trinidad Guardian)
Photo: UNC Senator and attorney Gerald Ramdeen.
(Copyright Trinidad Guardian)

However, the threat to Armour and Brooks remains serious as, even if the claims against the president and vice-president are dismissed, the two attorneys could still be voted out, if Ramlogan and company turn up with enough numbers.

Fifty financial members constitute a quorum and it will take just a simple majority to remove Armour and Brooks.

One legal insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity, claimed that the Law Association—and, in particular, its president and vice-president—were being repeatedly harassed by the Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her UNC stalwarts. He claimed that the no confidence motion was part of an assault by the opposition party.

“It was dishonesty manipulated by partisan politics,” the legal source told Wired868. “From the moment Armour ran for the post [as Law Association president], he was constantly referred to as, by the Opposition Leader, as a former legal adviser to (Prime Minister Dr Keith) Rowley and business partner of Al Rawi and Brooks is repeatedly described as the ‘new Calder Hart’ in an effort to tarnish them.”

So are Armour and Brooks too close to the ruling government for comfort?

Photo: Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago vice-president Gerry Brooks. (Copyright NGC)
Photo: Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago vice-president Gerry Brooks.
(Copyright NGC)

Armour was Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s lead attorney before he was elected LATT president. Three days later, he returned all his briefs for the PNM leader.

“I do not intend to allow partisan national politics to affect or to impact the Law Association,” said Armour, in a Guardian interview on 30 March 2015. “We are going to call a spade a spade and who the cap fits we will pull the string. I think it is important that we, myself and the council, make every effort that we can to put the stamp on the council and the Law Association as being non-partisan.

“I have been listening to people talking to me about the image of the Law Association and the need for the Law Association to re-establish itself, to command the public’s respect and I thought about (that).”

At present, Brooks sits on a half-dozen State boards though. Brooks also served as vice-president under former LATT president Jairam Seenath SC, who was criticised for supposedly being biased towards the then coalition People’s Partnership government.

Armour defeated Seenath by 323 votes to 106 on 20 March 2015.

The UNC, according to the source, sees the Law Association as a valuable potential weapon against the PNM Government.

Photo: Then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (left) shakes hands with her successor, Dr Keith Rowley, en route to Nelson Mandela's funeral in South Africa. (Courtesy News.Gov.TT)
Photo: Then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (left) shakes hands with her successor, Dr Keith Rowley, en route to Nelson Mandela’s funeral in South Africa.
(Courtesy News.Gov.TT)

“The Law Association is not out there commenting on everything because it needs to be doing work for its members,” said the source. “This is not a political pressure group. But the opposition wants lawyers out there criticising the government on the drop of a hat.”

Despite the exodus from the requisition, the LATT Council is said to remain cautious about tomorrow’s meeting and is calling on members to defend the sanctity of the body.

“Not all lawyers turn out for meetings because, for many, you are talking about taking an afternoon off to come to Port of Spain from San Fernando and so on,” said the source. “Maybe the withdrawals might lead people to say this meeting is a waste of time and they could stay away. And that might mean Ramlogan and Sturge and their people might come with enough numbers to push the vote through.

“They might feel they can mobilise people for political reason so they can win. A lot will depend on how many people [Armour and Brooks] can get out.”

 

Editor’s Note: The motion of no confidence against Law Association president Reginald Armour SC and vice-president Gerry Brooks failed.

About Lasana Liburd

Lasana Liburd
Lasana Liburd is the CEO and Editor at Wired868.com and a journalist with over 20 years experience at several Trinidad and Tobago and international publications including Play the Game, World Soccer, UK Guardian and the Trinidad Express.

Check Also

Daly Bread: Are the malls becoming crime hot spots? T&T’s state of anxiety is growing

Two ladies in the early afternoon—to which we refer colloquially as after lunch—park a vehicle …

221 comments

  1. They have ousted themselves. They are a disgrace to the legal fraternity.

  2. Sturge continues along an asinine path. He has been cautioned but chooses otherwise……….smh!

  3. It good! Send them to the latrine with their purge!

  4. Well if that happen…..all hell break loose…

  5. And what a surprise…….Anand is still around?….steups

  6. Anand and Ramdeen should never be allowed to represent anyone until the investigations in their misconduct is over

  7. I am happy to see that there was a large turnout and that the motion never got off the ground under the weight of large turnout. What was amazing was that Wayne Sturge claimed victory because as he put it, the LA was forced to comment on important public issues and will do so in the future because of this meeting. I saw a timeline of the comments being made and I fear that Mr Sturge is another stranger to the truth as the comments appeared to have been made long before his motion.

  8. One of many more victories to come.

  9. Just heard it was defeated .

  10. What about the other scoundrel DEBIDEEN….Their agenda is to oust them and replace them with their kind, so that more lawyers could be involved in their corrupted style practice without repercussions….The three STURGES..sorry STOOGES.

  11. This thread. My word.
    Is like a post #Brexit press conference.

  12. Symptomatic of the FAILED STATE that is this place !

  13. Haven’t these people discredited the legal profession sufficiently?

  14. I signed the requisition with the reservation that i dont believe it was necessary to move a motion of no confidence in the Law Association President/ VP.

    That reservation never made it into the publications etc.

    I’m recovering from zika so i will be chilling at home and ignoring this bubol

    • Part (a) seemed to be based on stunning inaccuracies Jonathan. And if part (a) was flawed and you had reservations about part (b), then I have to wonder why you signed at all.
      I wish you a full recovery from zika!

    • because i believed further debate was needed on the SSA bill , its ridiculous we have so many inroads into our human rights but we can’t put a single gang leader in jail

    • Lawyers have an odd way of requesting debate. By triggering a no confidence motion?

    • they try to turn the law association into parliament when they can ie. bachannal, accusations , politricks

    • Missing the meeting might be playing into the hands of the persons who initiated the motion. I always feel that it is necessary to be present to ensure that what you want to see at least gets your vote. Then there will be no regrets after.

    • I still don’t accept that no confidence motions are triggered as a means of getting a body together, Judy-ann Stewart. The constitution says any 25 financial members can call a special general meeting.
      So it seems disingenuous to suggest that debate could not have been had without that. If one disagreed, then why sign?

    • The no confidence motion has a purpose that seems questionable. I would take it that the purpose of calling any meeting using that method would be for matters that are of critical importance to the LA. To me that means that it could be crucial to all attorneys so they should make the effort to ensure that their views are heard and their vote registered. Wasn’t this method used to get rid of Dana Seetahal?

    • I’m not sure Judy-ann. Maybe someone remembers that era better than I do. Fulton Wilson?

  15. Do you subscribe to (a) and (b) of the requisition Jonathan Bhagan?

  16. Jonathan Bhagan …your namesake??

  17. Them three BIM bam bamsee missing b hole

  18. Not law association that is UNC ass sociation where de queen bee

  19. Replace Anand Ramlogan, Wayne Sturge, Gerald Ramdeen and Robin Montano with Leary Joseph, Peter Joseph, Sprangaland and Errol Fabien and, at least, a better group of comedians would be in place!

  20. Nothing that anand ramlogan does could ever impress me again.He is a big crook.

  21. Well this doesn’t look politically motivated at all…

  22. Let’s pretend that we don’t know they want to control the law association so there past indiscretions an present an future conduct don’t have consequences!!

  23. Elephants about to fight, sorry for the grass …

  24. People be weary of this diabolical plan

  25. All an effort by Anand to stave off charges that may be coming his way. Perversion of justice at its best

  26. And look at the three the most crooked lawyers in the country

  27. So what ever became of Anand and the allegations of his perverting the course of justice! Irony of ironies!

  28. Former president Martin Daly TRIED TO RESTORE the public’s confidence by seeking to get rid of the ” bandits posing as attorneys ” but his efforts were short lived…………….as the clique ensured that he didn’t get a second term

  29. The motion should about getting these PEN BANDITS to both UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT how much their PEN BANDITRY is ERODING peoples belief in the ” justice system ” resulting in more and more choosing to tale matters into their own hands !

  30. UNC lawyers versus PNM lawyers. Rich versus the richer. What we doing in dat?

  31. An important institution such as this should not be led by party hacks, whether they be PÑM or UNC. It is terrible that it is currently led by the PNM. They should be removed but only be replaced by apparent independent members.

  32. Only in TandT a thief and conman could take center stage!!

  33. dem fellas doh sleep in d night? All this maneuvering and gerrymandering…plus thriving law practices….dem doh have wife and children and ting?

  34. Keep your eyes open citizens. These three male figures are going to try to affect this country, and I am sure it will not be in a positive way.

  35. I believe the Law Association, if politicised, can be a cheap/free way for one political group to attack another in a manner that is almost impossible to ignore by the press and all under the cloak of independence.
    The problem, even for the well-intentioned non partisan executive members of such boards, is that so much public confidence has already been lost in such bodies after the last five years.

  36. Too much lawerys and judges playing too politics in this country. ..

  37. These people are god’s unto themselves but Pharaoh was great than them but look what happened to pharaoh

  38. I dont think the petition will gather much traction. If they couldnt stop the election of someone whilst in Govt, its pretty certain that they wont be able to remove the President when not in Govt.

  39. Some ppl have a very high threshold for foolishness and self embarrassment.

  40. Now this is what the LA gets for not revoking the licences of certain unethical members

    When Gd people do nuttin the bad keep rampaging

  41. hahahahahahahahahahahahaa; watch and learn; see the Master(s) in action
    Wishing Anand away is not going to help

  42. Well,first time ,with great love,they are attempting to separate the sheepskins from the goats.

  43. This have more drama than the CFU election

  44. If the Law Association’s members didn’t know what they were signing it means there is no point in having a law association.

  45. Anand and purge…pure epsom salts!

  46. See……..I knew I shouldn’t care!

  47. a scorched earth policy to gain ascendancy on important institutions to stifle any onward criticism ,the three principal actors having close ties to the former administration gives rise to suspicion that this is not a normal no confidence motion it is essentially a palace coup.will it backfire

  48. that’s what the opposition is banking on, cause disruption and fool the people. lawyers fighting among themselves, crime versus white collar bandits in high offices . Is it the same?

  49. the law association is not respected by the population they will be respected even less now

  50. I’m not sure how much it matters one way or the other. Armor’s integrity is intact, and his knowledge well respected- but he may be hoping against hope here. If the latt takes any position that any political party doesn’t like the reaction would be 1. To call it political and 2. To get an opposite opinion from a legal luminary. Armor is too late- when the legitimacy of an institution is undermined, it can’t be rehabilitated without constitutional change. That was the point Rowley and I made about Sec 34. And it’s why we need to scrap the IC and many other institutions here. We’re far worse off than we know.

    • Earl Best

      Really, Justin? Aren’t you overstating the case? Do you really think that the people who matter believe that Reggie is for sale? Look again the results of the election and see the size of the majority that elected him? Do you really think that in less than two years, most of these people have changed their opinion?

      Frankly, I’m very sceptical about the validity of your claims.

    • but who is willing to make such changes when politics is in every thing. many of the institutions are non functional but when you attempt to touch it or seek reforms or event shutdown like the (IC) which has been discredited for so many reasons and serve no purpose, roadblocks and obstructions are placed. when will people stand up for what is right in this country and call a spade a spade.

    • Yes- precisely. Note that it doesn’t matter WHICH side undermines the legitimacy of an institution- if it’s politicized blamelessly, the job to rebuild still has to be done- which is why we should be far more outraged than we are when the efforts are made in the first place.

    • We have the same problem in the media with MATT. And as a former member there, I definitely wish Armour well with his efforts.

    • Part of the country’s problem is the gullibility of the electorate in any case. We will forever the sprinting in quicksand until the public better understands this game of politics.

    • I think my former Spanish teacher may have misunderstood my point. The point I tried to make is that notwithstanding his unblemished integrity, the Association has been undermined in the perception of the public. My point had nothing to do with Armour “being for sale”, as a matter of fact, I was careful to make the opposite clear.

    • I agree with you that the public has so little faith in these various bodies, particularly after the last five years.
      But, to be fair, I fully grasp that it is not LATT’s job to be a pressure group.

    • this is the problem, who wants to stand up for reform or change in theses institutions. a handful of people, so there is no real lobbying for change. country does not come first but party politics which leaves them blinded or fear to stand up for what is right which is in the minority

  51. Rajcoomar actually researched the thing for the Law Association and then signed a document which said that the President and Vice-President acted without consulting anyone else in the law body.
    That one is special.

    • Well-you don’t know if he signed a document saying that. All you know is that he signed a document. This is what we are made of. It’s the essence of a profession that prides itself on being “officers of the court” defenders of Justice, and respectable. “We” here is inevitable due to meh certificate, but used with pain.

    • Lol. True. Ok. Let me say then that his signature appeared on a document which said… Blah, blah, blah…
      Almost as shameful. 99 percent as bad I think.

  52. Even worse was to see him being interviewed on TV6 about the said report and no question was asked about his alleged incompetence by Fazeer Mohammed. (if I am not mistaken)

  53. Been saying this for years. This is why when important matters which affect our country arise, you can get a legal opinion saying yay, and one saying nay, from equally experienced lawyers. It is why for eg, Warner was able to get three legal luminaries to give written legal opinions that the Sir David Simmons FIFA ethics inquiry was wrong to condemn him. The implication is impossible to exaggerate-it’s the legal profession undermining the rule of law-which is a highly flammable thing. There you go.

  54. Rats will always rummage for cheese. *Yawning*

  55. another political bacchanal, silk unto silk and you want the Judiciary, or is this a calculated effort to make the country ungovernable’ as promised by the former silk PM

  56. really funny……wasn’t one of those lawyers described as incompetent by Sir Anthony Colman in the Commission into CL Financial fiasco?

    • Earl Best

      Not that discerning people needed the learned fellow to tell us what was patently obvious to all…

      And ‘incompetent’ may well have been a deliberate euphemism…

    • There was no use of euphemism. Ms. Marshall hasn’t quoted the full phrase used, which I’m sure is available to those who remember these things.

  57. Lawyers are saying that they didn’t know what they were signing. How do you respond to that statement?

    • That was the first thing that popped in my head too Kendall! Haha.

    • Kendall Tull #Brexit4Lawyers.

    • I wonder how many of them work at the Chambers of some of dissenting lawyers and therefore signed to keep their jobs. Perhaps they would be better served by working with the DPP and getting cases up and running through the system.

    • Judy-ann Stewart…there is something called professional integrity (could be an oxymoron given the profession we talking about lol). Of all people, I doubt a lawyer can claim they signed something and did not know what they were signing. Unless it was just to call the Law Association out on lack of consultation. And then ‘somebody’ decide to take it further with no confidence motion. But to be honest, I have questions about the association. Why are lawyers allowed to continue to practice before the courts if there are allegations against them. I do understand allegations, charges and convictions are different things. But how can a reasonable client have confidence in an attorney if his integrity is being called into question? Does it not bring the profession into disrepute?

    • Nerisha stop talking sense

    • And that’s why I relented with those who had signed before

      They wanted to discuss the SSA bill

      Anand and co want to change leadership

    • Nerisha Mohammed these people will fit in nicely in the TEDEX discussion on the illusion of free speech in TT. As you have pointed out, lawyers and integrity are poles apart. When I think of the alledged briefs that were given for a commission/kick back, you really have to wonder. Perhaps we may actually have persons at the head of the LA who may act so it would be important to get them removed before they change the legal status quo. I am looking forward to seeing the result of the meeting later.

      I always feel sorry for the pawns but these have to understand that the actions that they take now will affect their professional life in the future.

  58. What does the Law Association do exactly?
    I’m trying to see why I should care! LOL

  59. Earl Best

    Ha! By any means necessary, eh, Mr former AG? I am telling you that if the govt. does not find a way to put some of these former parliamentarians behind bars, life will continue to be made difficult for thsoe who support them or wish to remain neutral. Fortunately, there are good men like your source, Mr Editor, who are not prepared not to be vigilant and to keep their eyes open daily.

  60. Daly is campaigning for the presidency!!!…this article is not balanced but seeks to tarnish one faction!…they all have history…ramlogan…ramdeen…sturge…mendes and brooks…he slyly brushes by details of some characters.