AG to Duprey: Face the music
LIONEL LUCKHOO, an attorney for Lawrence Duprey, yesterday released a letter knocking Attorney General Anand Ramlogan for calling Duprey, “a wanted man” during the weekly post-Cabinet press briefing last Thursday.
But in an immediate response, Ramlogan via his lawyer Donna Prowell issued a letter to the effect that Duprey — the former CL Financial Executive Chairman — should come home and “face the music”.
Prowell said Ramlogan, who was a Constitutional and judicial review lawyer before assuming the post of Attorney General, stands “ready, poised, willing and able” to defend any action Duprey may bring.
In his letter, Luckhoo said: “In referring to Lawrence Duprey as a wanted man in the further context of his being the ‘central protagonist’ in the recently concluded inquiry, you have arrogated unto yourself the role of the Commissioner.”
He said the Attorney General’s office was separate and distinct from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. “No criminal proceedings have been instituted against my client, there is at this stage an inquiry which should continue without political interference and without seeking to pre-judge its result,” Luckhoo wrote.
“Not too many years ago (and possibly in not too many years in the future) you as an attorney in private practice sought to protect the human and constitutional rights of your clients.”
But in response, Prowell wrote: “With respect to your (Luckhoo) query about what Mr Ramlogan’s response would have been had he been Mr Duprey’s lawyer, we are instructed that he (Ramlogan) would have advised his client (Duprey) to return home to the country where he amassed his billion-dollar fortune and accept service of the witness summons. He would have further advised him that he (Duprey) should appear and give evidence before the commission of inquiry and allow himself to be cross-examined where appropriate.”
Prowell’s letter added: “He (Ramlogan) would have also advised him (Duprey) that to do otherwise, would have created the impression that he (Duprey) was being evasive, uncooperative and would lead ordinary people to wonder if he (Duprey) had something to hide. In short, he (Ramlogan) would have advised him (Duprey) to face the music and clear his good name.”
Luckhoo said his client has a right to “due process” and had in fact, cooperated with the three-year inquiry chaired by Sir Anthony Colman, which ended on Thursday, “save where same seemed to conflict with his fair trial rights.” Luckhoo said he was not aware that the police were asked to serve a summons on Duprey.
“If you continue to prejudice my clients’ fair trial rights he will have to consider taking such steps as are necessary to protect his rights,” Luckhoo said. This included seeking “injunctive relief from you continuing to make public statements.”
Prowell replied: “That the fact that you are ‘astounded’ that the police were directed to serve the Witness Summons on Mr Duprey is perhaps a reflection on your lack of knowledge of the basic procedures utilised by all commissions.” She continued, “We notice that you were careful to state that your client has ‘NOT been to Trinidad since the middle of 2009’.
We would be grateful if you could clarify whether this means that he has been visiting Tobago as we are instructed that there are rumours that he has been visiting Tobago in the company of some friends aboard a yacht.” She further revealed that Duprey’s brother, Peter, was also served a summon to bring proceedings to the attention of Lawrence.
“As one of the Attorney’s representing Mr Duprey, you would have no doubt advised him that Sir Anthony Colman QC had issued a Witness Summons to secure his attendance,” Prowell said. “We are instructed that this summons was also served on your client’s brother, Mr Peter Duprey by Constable Jason Marine #18444 on the 28th February, 2012 in attempt to ensure that he is aware that his attendance was required.”
She continued, “It would be unfortunate if both your good self and Mr Duprey’s brother failed to bring the fact of this Witness Summons to his attention. You did not state clearly whether your client was in fact made aware that the COI had issued a Witness Summons to secure his attendance.”
AG Letter to Mr. Duprey
May 3, 2013
Lionel M. Luckhoo, Esq.,
Attorney-at-Law,
Trinity Chambers
Nos. 44-58 Edward Street,
PORT OF SPAIN.
Dear Sir:
We act herein for the Honourable Attorney General, Senator Anand Ramlogan SC. Your letter of even date addressed to our client has been passed to us with instructions to reply thereto.
Our instructions are as follows:-
1. Our client did in fact state that had Mr. Duprey been served with the sup-poena to attend and give evidence at the Coleman Commission of Enquiry (COI) and failed to show, he would have been liable to the criminal process. In such circumstances, your client risked prosecution for a criminal offence in accordance with of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, Chapter 19:01, Section 12 and would have most certainly been a wanted man.
2. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that your client was a material witness who was required to attend this COI. He was wanted by the Commission for this purpose. That you would take objection to the description of your client as the ‘central protagonist’ who was a wanted man in this regard is strange and illogical.
3. Our client rejects the assertion that his description of Mr. Duprey as the ‘central protagonist’ amounts to an unlawful arrogation or usurpation of the role of the Commissioner. Mr. Duprey was in fact the head of the CLICO empire. He was the executive Chairman of CL Financial and Chairman of CLICO. This description is therefore justified and fairly obvious to the average ‘man-in-the-street’.
4. Our client is well aware of the fact that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) is constitutionally responsible for criminal prosecutions but wishes to draw your attention to the fact that the DPP has indicated that the COI has the status of a court of law and hence possesses the power to initiate criminal prosecution for non-attendance under section 12. Whilst it is noteworthy that you remember our client’s enviable track record in defending the constitutional rights of hundreds of citizens from all walks of life, it is precisely this experience with the less fortunate in our society that has led to his personal and official concern about the failure and/or refusal of Mr. Duprey to attend the COI.
5. With respect to your query about what Mr. Ramlogan’s response would have been had he been Mr. Duprey’s lawyer, we are instructed that he would have advised his client to return home to the country where he amassed his billion-dollar fortune and accept service of the Witness Summons. He would have further advised him that he should appear and give evidence before the COI and allow himself to be cross-examined where appropriate. He would have also advised him that to do otherwise, would have created the impression that he was being evasive and un-cooperative and led ordinary people to wonder if he had something to hide. In short, he would have advised to face the music and clear his good name.
6. Our client is happy that you took time to visit his Ministry’s website. His commitment to ‘justice for all’ however, is buttressed by his duty to protect and act in the public interest.
7. As one of the Attorneys representing Mr. Duprey, you would have no doubt advised him that Sir Anthony Coleman QC had issued a Witness Summons to secure his attendance. We are instructed that this summons was also served on your client’s brother, Mr. Peter Duprey by Constable Jason Marine #18444 on the 28th February, 2012 in attempt to ensure that he is aware that his attendance was required. It would be unfortunate if both your good self and Mr. Duprey’s brother failed to bring the fact of this Witness Summons to his attention. You did not state clearly whether your client was in fact made aware that the COI had issued a Witness Summons to secure his attendance.
8. In light of your decision to release your letter to the media, perhaps you can clarify this important issue as there are many who would want to know if Mr. Duprey was in fact aware of the Witness Summons and deliberately avoided or refused to come to Trinidad and Tobago to facilitate service.
9. That the fact that you are “astounded” that the police was directed to serve the Witness Summons on Mr. Duprey is perhaps a reflection on your lack of knowledge of the basic procedures utilised by all Commissions. We notice that you were careful to state that your client has “NOT been to Trinidad since the middle of 2009”. We would be grateful if you could clarify whether this means that he has been visiting Tobago as we are instructed that there are rumours that he has been visiting Tobago in the company of some friends aboard a yacht. Service of the Witness Summons upon him in Tobago, we are sure you would agree, would have been quite lawful as we are a twin island republic and the jurisdiction of the COI extends to Tobago.
In closing, we note that your letter does not purport to be a pre-action letter in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol Direction of the Civil Proceeding Rules (1998 as amended). Indeed, you do not allege defamation of any kind. Rest assured that our client stands ready, poised, willing and able to defend his statements. Mr. Ramlogan has instructed us to accept service on his behalf of any court proceedings you may wish to initiate
Be guided accordingly.
Sincerely,
Donna Prowell.
Of Counsel.
—
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO