Dear Editor: Martin Daly SC should explain finer points of Vincent Nelson’s indemnity deal

“[…] I would also like Mr [Martin] Daly SC to explain, in his column, why he thinks that the DPP took the correct decision to discontinue, for the time being, the charges against Messrs Anand Ramlogan, SC, and Gerard Ramdeen—having regard to all the documentary and other information in the public domain, as serialised in the local press…”

The following Letter to the Editor regarding the view of Martin Daly SC on an Indemnity Agreement granted to former British QC Vincent Nelson by ex-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi was submitted to Wired868 by Louis Williams of St Augustine:

Former British Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson.

As I understand it, I heard Mr Martin Daly, SC, indicated, in a radio interview (i95.5fm on Thursday 27 October 2022) that the Attorney General had utilised an “old-fashioned” version of the sub judice rule in his refusal to offer his comments, as requested by the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT), on certain aspects of the Vincent Nelson matter—regarding the Indemnity Agreement, now being litigated in the court.

I always thought that a matter was either sub judice, or it was not. Perhaps Mr Daly can use his column to educate the public on the sub judice rule, and the current standard as evinced by case law.

I would also like Mr Daly to explain, in his column, why he thinks that the DPP took the correct decision to discontinue, for the time being, the charges against Messrs Anand Ramlogan, SC, and Gerard Ramdeen—having regard to all the documentary and other information in the public domain, as serialised in the local press.

Photo: Martin Daly, SC, is a former Independent Senator, a lover of pan and a columnist of long standing
(Courtesy UWI.sta.edu)

Mr Nelson has stated his unwillingness to testify in the “criminal matter” while a civil matter concerning the Indemnity Agreement is before the court.

Perhaps Mr Daly could explain in his column why the DPP ought not to seek to enforce his plea agreement with Mr Nelson and compel Mr Nelson to testify—given that Mr Nelson received a much lighter sentence in exchange for his testimony, and other information against Messrs Ramlogan and Ramdeen.

Mr Daly could also explain, in his column, what redress the Government or the public has if any DPP is delinquent/negligent/derelict in the performance of his duties, and/or takes a decision that is patently erroneous.

More from Wired868
Demming: Sandals offer must be fair to all—why I split with TDC over MOU

“[…] The now-infamous Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), exposed thanks to Afra Raymond’s successful legal challenge, showed a lopsided agreement. The Read more

Dear Editor: Appeal Court ruling on buggery drives home importance of constitutional reform

“[…] The [Appeal] Court ruled that, despite modern thinking and growing public support for human rights, parts of our Constitution Read more

Dr Farrell: Judicial independence vs accountability—why everyone loses in Ayers-Caesar v JLSC

“[…] Both the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal noted that the motivations of the JLSC [in the Marcia Read more

Dear Editor: Digitalisation of Carnival could lead to national transformation

“[...] Here in Trinidad and Tobago, the Road March results still rely on a manual system—TUCO officials physically count song Read more

Dear Editor: A sitting MP is evading a debt collection agency; suppose he gets elected?

“[…] In the news just recently, we had a case of a sitting MP evading a collection agency over a Read more

Dear Editor: Calypso is not dying—it’s demonstrating its adaptability

“[…] The calypso artform, like other artforms, has [...] always been constantly evolving. Although I am an elderly person, I Read more

Check Also

Dear Editor: T&T’s housing crisis—“what good is a degree if you’re paying 60% of your salary in rent?”

“[…] I stand here not just for myself, but for every young professional drowning in …

2 comments

  1. Stephen needs to read and digest the contents of my letter.

    The headline was provided by the editor, not me.

    Apparently, Stephen read the headline, and misled himself.

    Please Stephen read and digest the contents of my letter and then offer an intelligent comment. Do not sell yourself short. You are better than that!

  2. I think you should contact Al Warie, Armour, Roger Kawalsingh, Keith Scotland, MENDES and Peterson who are in. Superior position to explain same to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.