PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) — The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement in a case in which the Jamaican-born British King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson has filed a lawsuit alleging breaches of an indemnity agreement he entered into to implicate former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and attorney Gerald Ramdeen in an alleged legal fee kickback scheme.

In October 2017, Nelson provided a statement in which he claimed that Ramlogan had demanded that he pay him 10 per cent of the legal fees he received for representing the state and state companies during Ramlogan’s tenure between 2010 and 2015.

He said Ramdeen served as the intermediary by allegedly collecting the funds and paying them over to Ramlogan.

Almost a month later, Nelson entered into an indemnity agreement with former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi. In the document, Al-Rawi, as the legal representative of the government, agreed that Nelson’s statement would not be released into the public domain, including through parliamentary debate.

While the Court of Appeal did not set a date for its ruling, Justice Gillian Lucky said that the court usually delivers its judgments within six months of an appeal being heard. Lawyers completed their submissions on Tuesday.

Nelson, in his appeal, is claiming that High Court Judge Justice Jacqueline Wilson was wrong to reject his case seeking almost TT$100 million (One TT dollar=US$0.16 cents) in damages based on his loss of earnings after he entered into the agreement in 2017.

Nelson, who made his submissions on Tuesday, said that damage to his professional reputation was a foreseeable consequence of his involvement as an informant being made public.

He told the Appeal Court that Justice Wilson was wrong to refuse to find that the professional damage he suffered was not directly connected to minor breaches of the agreement between him and Al-Rawi, adding that the agreement was broadly drafted and intended to cover a wide range of possible outcomes.

“If it was within the scope of the indemnity agreement, then remoteness does not apply,” Nelson said, suggesting that the agreement had to be upheld; otherwise, it would undermine the state’s ability to convince informers and whistle-blowers to testify.

“No informer would come forward if they have no protection,” Nelson said.

But in response, King’s Counsel Tom Poole said that Nelson’s prosecution by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not constitute a breach of the agreement and that Al-Rawi only promised to recommend that Nelson not be prosecuted but could not guarantee it.

“The agreement recognised the DPP had independent constitutional power, including to decide whether to prosecute,” Poole said, adding that Justice Wilson was correct to rule that the agreement was breached when former government minister Stuart Young shared Nelson’s notarised statement, implicating Ramlogan, Ramdeen and himself, with the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency (NCA), leading to a tax evasion probe.

However, Poole told the Court of Appeal that the breach did not directly lead to Nelson being expelled from his law chambers by his colleagues or the United Kingdom Bar Standards Board’s refusal to issue Nelson with a practising certificate.

He said both decisions were based on Nelson being initially charged alongside Ramlogan and Ramdeen and pleading guilty.

The King’s Counsel said that the decision by the Attorney General’s Office to pay Nelson’s legal fees for the criminal charges did not mean that it accepted liability for Nelson’s inability to practise law.

However, in a brief response, Nelson maintained that his inability to practise was based on his removal from his chambers and his difficulty in finding a replacement, as opposed to action taken by the board.

He said that the board had never taken disciplinary action against him in the past eight years, adding “if it has the power to debar me, then it would have done so”.

In October 2017, Nelson provided a statement in which he claimed that Ramlogan had demanded that he pay him 10 per cent of the legal fees he received for representing the state and state companies during Ramlogan’s tenure between 2010 and 2015.

In 2019, Ramlogan, Ramdeen and Nelson were charged with conspiring together to receive, conceal and transfer criminal property, namely the rewards given to Ramlogan by Nelson for being appointed to represent the state in several cases; conspiring together to corruptly give Ramlogan a percentage of the funds; and conspiring with Ramlogan to make him misbehave in public office by receiving the funds.

Shortly after being charged, Nelson entered into a plea agreement with the DPP’s office in exchange for his testimony against Ramlogan and Ramdeen.

In March 2020, High Court Judge Malcolm Holdip upheld the plea agreement and issued a total of $2.25 million in fines to Nelson for his role in the alleged conspiracy.

Under his plea agreement, the conspiracy to commit misbehaviour in public office charge was dropped, and he was fined for the other two offences. He was also placed on a $250,000 bond to keep the peace for three years.

Nelson then sued the state, alleging that it breached the indemnity agreement. He also filed a separate case seeking to overturn his convictions and sentences.

In October 2022, DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, was forced to discontinue the corruption case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen due to Nelson’s unwillingness to testify while his lawsuits were being determined.

Gaspard said then that the charges may be refiled if Nelson’s position changes.

In July last year, the Jamaican-born British King’s Counsel lost an appeal against his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit corruption and money laundering with the Court of Appeal, affirming an earlier decision to extend the time for Nelson to file his appeal.

Nelson is pursuing a final appeal in that case before the UK-based Privy Council.