The following question was emailed to me by an Express reporter on Friday 23rd, January, 2015, seeking a response:
“Investigations revealed that on October 31, 2014 you telephoned attorney David West asking him to withdraw his witness statement in relation to the extradition matter involving Steve Ferguson and Ish Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected as director of the Police Complaints Authority. Is this true? If so, why was this done?”
Whilst I was, and remain reluctant to comment on a matter in which I am the claimant that is awaiting trial before the High Court, I wish to categorically refute and deny the allegation that I asked PCA Chairman David West to withdraw his witness statement during a telephone conversation which allegedly took place on October 31st, 2014 or at any time thereafter. I was only aware that Mr West had filed a witness statement in this case when it was served on my Attorneys on December 22nd, 2014. The said witness statement had in fact been filed in court a mere two days before.
It is impossible for me to have asked Mr West on October 31, 2014 to withdraw a witness statement which only came into existence almost two months later. I could not have possibly asked Mr West to not give evidence against me in favour of Dr Rowleys defence in exchange for him being appointed Chairman of the PCA as this appointment is made by the President of the country and not the AG. This is similar to the allegation in the fraudulent emailgate where it is alleged that I was going to remove the DPP by appointing him a judge. That power, of course, lies in with the Judicial and Legal Services Commission which is chaired by the Chief Justice and I could not possibly make such an offer, far less a promise, that I was powerless to deliver.
An issue is being raised almost 3 months after the alleged conversation and two months after Mr West was appointed Chairman of the PCA. If, as is alleged, Mr West immediately sought proper legal advice as alleged, no doubt he would have been advised to report the matter to the Integrity Commission and the Commissioner of Police instead of remaining silent. The fact remains however, Mr West filed and served his witness statement and my case is awaiting trial.
The carefully selected parts of the evidence in my case that was published does not tell the entire story. At trial, the truth will emerge under cross examination and set me free. I pray and wait in hope for the judiciary to give me my day in court so that justice can be done. I am confident that the truth will set me free.
I remain extremely concerned that a newspaper can claim to have gained access to a citizen’s private phone records and wish to remind the media of the provisions of the Interception of Private Communications Act which makes it a criminal offence to intercept private communications. Only law enforcement agencies are allowed to do this with proper authorisation. We must not sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of political or journalistic expediency.
Anand Ramlogan, SC
Senator the Honourable Attorney General
Ministry of the Attorney General