Dissident LATT attorney: I trust Sturge’s political acumen AND support Armour

Attorney Jonathan Bhagan, one of 30 signatories on a no confidence motion against Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC and vice-president Gerry Brooks, confirmed today that he was not misled into signing the controversial requisition by UNC Senator Wayne Sturge.

“Mr Sturge did not attempt to mislead me in any way despite allegations from other signatories that they were mislead,” said Bhagan, via a media statement. “I placed trust in Mr Sturge’s political acumen that such a move was necessary to bring certain issues to light in order to preserve the fabric of our democracy.”

However, Bhagan simultaneously claimed to “full confidence” in Armour’s leadership of the LATT. His statement, which was emailed to the media, was ostensibly meant to clarify his role in the motion that was quashed yesterday at a special general meeting without even getting off the ground.

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

1. To call upon the President of the Law Association Mr Reginald Armour SC 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?
2. 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.

However, the LATT pointed out that its response to the SSA Bill was guided by research from committee members Ravi Rajcoomar and Rishi Dass on 11 April and discussed in a Council meeting on 12 April while, after meeting Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, Armour and Brooks reported back to its executive members on 14 April and 10 May.

The Law Association’s response and the publication of the unhappy attorneys saw 12 of the original 30 signatories officially abandon the motion—and at least nine attorneys claimed to have been misled by Sturge.

The attorneys who abandoned the requisition are: Ravi Rajcoomar, Alisa Khan, Shivana Nath, Irshaad Ali, Adam Razack, Shivonne Francis, Indarjit Seuraj, Seana Baboolal, Brent Hallpike, Makeda Browne-Alfred, Jerry Lee Ramkissoon-David and UNC legal advisor Collin Partap.

The attorneys who have not distanced themselves from the controversial motion 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.

Neither Sturge nor fellow UNC Senator Gerald Ramdeen defended the requisition at yesterday’s LATT special general meeting while fellow instigators, ex-Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and ex-UNC Senator Robin Montano, stayed away.

Bhagan was absent too but he explained that his absence was due to his bout with the Zika virus and he stood by his initial position. Yet, paradoxically, he claimed to be “assured” that the motion failed.

“I signed the petition with full knowledge of its contents, however I did orally express a reservation to Mr Wayne Sturge that Mr Armour, SC had not done anything to warrant a motion of no confidence,” said Bhagan. “(…) I had noted the withdrawals from the motion of no confidence and I felt assured that even in my absence, the motion would fail.

“I was also recovering from symptoms associated with the Zika virus and did not consider it expedient to attend the meeting.

“I was, however, encouraged by my colleagues in the legal fraternity, and motivated by my good conscience, to release a clarifying statement, due to the seriousness of the matter at hand.”

Bhagan attempted to explain his apparent contradiction by claiming that his support for the requisition, which included a no confidence motion, was his way of encouraging debate on the SSA Bill.

“I had hoped that it would result in a debate on the implications of the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) Amendment Bill 2016 and the way it impacted the constitutional rights of Trinidad and Tobago’s citizens.

“I am of the firm view that such legislation can only be justifiable in Trinidad and Tobago if the Police Service and National Security apparatus undergo adequate reform. Further, I believe that the oversight of an independent body would be necessary to prevent manipulation and political victimisation by the Executive.”

Bhagan, like Sturge, claimed that his mind was put at ease following a release by the Law Association on 19 July. He did not offer comment on LATT’s statement that it discussed the matter with its Council on12 April and reported back to the body on 14 April and 10 May—almost two months before the requisition was put forward.

“A statement was subsequently released by the Law Association on 19 July via email regarding consultation on the SSA Bill,” stated Bhagan. “This statement satisfied me that the Law Association President and Vice President took the necessary steps to advise the Honourable Attorney General about issues regarding the failure of the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) Amendment Bill 2016 to properly insulate the SSA from potential manipulation by the Executive.”

Bhagan, who described Armour as a leader that demonstrated the greatest integrity, said he hoped for “peace and camaraderie” within the legal fraternity, as well full respect for freedom of thought and expression. He said he attempted to reach the Law Association President to personally explain his position on the requisition.

However, according to Bhagan, “the email was returned to my inbox unsent.”

The following is the full statement from attorney Jonathan Bhagan:

Dear colleagues and esteemed members of the Bar,

This correspondence serves to clarify my position on the motion of no confidence raised against Mr Reginald Armour, SC and to explain my absence from the meeting, held on July 25th, 2016 as a result of same.

I signed the petition with full knowledge of its contents, however I did orally express a reservation to Mr Wayne Sturge that Mr Armour, SC had not done anything to warrant a motion of no confidence. Mr Sturge did not attempt to mislead me in any way despite allegations from other signatories that they were mislead. I placed trust in Mr Sturge’s political acumen that such a move was necessary to bring certain issues to light in order to preserve the fabric of our democracy.

Subsequent to my signing of the petition, I had attempted to contact Mr Armour via his personal Marie De Vere email address, to explain why I had signed, but due to unknown technical problems, the email was returned to my inbox unsent.

My deep interest in human rights advocacy and work with civil society had guided my decision to sign the aforementioned petition, as I had hoped that it would result in a debate on the implications of the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) Amendment Bill 2016 and the way it impacted the constitutional rights of Trinidad and Tobago’s citizens.

I am of the firm view that such legislation can only be justifiable in Trinidad and Tobago if the Police Service and National Security apparatus undergo adequate reform. Further, I believe that the oversight of an independent body would be necessary to prevent manipulation and political victimisation by the Executive.

Given global political instabilities, the crime situation and the large number of Trinidad and Tobago Citizens who have joined international terrorist organisations I considered the very real possibility of Trinidad and Tobago devolving into a police state with serious infringements on human rights becoming the norm.

A statement was subsequently released by the Law Association on 19 July via email regarding consultation on the SSA Bill. This statement satisfied me that the Law Association President and Vice President took the necessary steps to advise the Honourable Attorney General about issues regarding the failure of the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) Amendment Bill 2016 to properly insulate the SSA from potential manipulation by the Executive.

Given the fact that the SSA Amendment Bill had already been passed by the Parliament and assented to by the President I did not consider any contribution I could make at the Special General Meeting significant. I had been satisfied by the statement released by the Law Association on 19 July that the President and Vice President of the Law Association had done their due diligence and thus I had no major concerns to ventilate at the meeting.

I had noted the withdrawals from the motion of no confidence and I felt assured that even in my absence, the motion would fail. I was also recovering from symptoms associated with the Zika virus and did not consider it expedient to attend the meeting.

I was, however, encouraged by my colleagues in the legal fraternity, and motivated by my good conscience, to release a clarifying statement, due to the seriousness of the matter at hand.

I apologise to the President and Vice-President of the Law Association for any inconvenience caused by my absence and in closing, express my full confidence in Mr Armour SC to lead the Law Association, as he has always demonstrated the greatest integrity.

I hope that despite the confusion that ensued, the Law Association can take this opportunity to repair divisions between the ranks of its membership and maintain peace and camaraderie.

I also hope that we maintain a society that has full respect for the right to Freedom of Thought and Expression as enshrined in our constitution. Despite the chaos that ensued as a result of this motion it shows that the Law Association remains a fundamental component of our democracy by permitting its members to express their concerns freely.

Regards,

Jonathan Bhagan,

Attorney At Law

Editor’s Note: Jonathan Bhagan requested, after Wired868’s publication of his letter, that—since the story is already published and will not be taken down—republication should be discouraged on advice of legal counsel.

More from Wired868

Noble: Is Griffith positioning himself as T&T’s J Edgar Hoover? Or Donald Trump?

“A lawless, indisciplined and corrupt nation cannot fight crime.” Pastor Clive Dottin, The People’s Roundtable, January 2024. At The People’s Read more

Daly Bread: Into the political hereafter; as Opposition Leader shows up Govt response to Privy Council

There is a new example of political truth being stranger than fiction. It is that it takes two very wobbly Read more

Daly Bread: Was AG looking for VAR? At least, Prime Minister responded sensibly

As football fans know, VAR stands for Video Assistant Referee. This is the additional refereeing team that uses technology located Read more

Daly Bread: Answers required for accountability in DPP imbroglio

Persons in public life frequently exercise power without accountability. As President Paula-Mae Weekes was recently demitting office, we were reminded Read more

Noble: When will we hold accountable those “honourable” members who lead?

“When a crime is not punished quickly, people feel it is safe to do wrong.” Ecclesiastes 8: 11 Last week’s Read more

Daly Bread: Ten thousand flowers bloom in panyards, but ole mas in Office of the AG

Trinidad and Tobago Television (TTT) has provided quality coverage of this season’s Panorama competitions, particularly through the engagement of knowledgeable Read more