EVEN if former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, is successful in his constitutional claim in his witness-tampering case, the prosecution of the matter can still proceed, lead prosecutor Edward Jenkins, QC, maintains.
Jenkins made the comment at the first hearing of the constitutional claim filed by Ramlogan before Justice Nadia Kangaloo on Wednesday.
Ramlogan has complained about the authority of the police to gather certain evidence the prosecution intends to use in its prosecution of allegations against him, and has also raised an issue of apparent bias on the part of a High Court judge who signed off on certain warrants to the police.
He says his constitutional rights have been infringed.
The matter has been adjourned to November 4, at which time further directions are expected to be given by Kangaloo for a full hearing of the matter. The preliminary inquiry into the witness-tampering allegations was expected to begin on July 11 before Chief Magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle.
However, before it could get going, she was told Ramlogan was raising an issue only the High Court could determine under section 14.4 of the Constitution. The chief magistrate referred the matter to the High Court and it was assigned to Kangaloo.
As a result, the trial for the inquiry in the lower court was put on hold. A hearing will be held there on September 19, to determine the status of the constitutional claim before the High Court.
On Wednesday, Jenkins pressed Kangaloo to proceed with the matter before her as soon as possible since there was no stay of the proceedings before the chief magistrate.
But, he noted, even if Ramlogan was successful in his constitutional claim, it will not be the end of the prosecution’s case.
However, one of Ramlogan’s attorneys in the High Court matter, Kent Samlal, said they can only file a formal claim once Ramlogan’s lead counsel Peter Carter, QC, is admitted to practise in Trinidad.
He said they have written to the Office of the Attorney General seeking to have the minister make an order for Carter’s special admission.
“We are awaiting word on that.”
Samlal said it was only when Carter is formally admitted he can properly begin his work which includes the filing of a fixed-date claim.
In his complaint, which will form the backbone of his constitutional claim, Ramlogan says his rights have been contravened because of the unlawful issuance of warrants for the interception of communication data as it related to phone calls.
He contends the police wrongfully used the warrant process, and the signing-off on five interception orders by then High Court judge Justice Gillian Lucky in 2019 was on the basis of apparent bias.
“These constitutional issues are deeply profound and have far-reaching consequences. Not only do they impact the criminal law jurisdiction in terms of evidence gathering, charging, and the prosecution of alleged criminal activity, but they also, and most importantly, impact the sacrosanct constitutional rights of citizens, essentially to be free from u
