I wish to draw your attention to inaccuracies in a news story headlined "British fraud expert coming to help DPP," which appeared on page A6 of the Trinidad Guardian on November 25. The article which contained inaccurate information attributed to Attorney General Senator Anand Ramlogan was based on a news conference held at the office of the Attorney General during the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom and the Office of the Attorney General.
The article contains several inaccuracies that merit clarification and correction.
What Senator Ramlogan indicated was that an officer from the British Crown Prosecution Service will be sourced to provide assistance in a number of areas. He further indicated that he had met senior officials from the Office of the DPP in London, on his last visit to England, and asked whether it would be possible for the person selected to possess some expertise in financial crime and fraud, as this was an area relevant to several matters under investigation at this time. The Attorney General said no person had been identified far less selected for the three-year posting and the AG would never seek to superimpose someone on the Office of the DPP without his consent and permission. Senator Ramlogan has in fact discussed this matter with the DPP and will consult him before the officer is allowed to assume office or the position.
The opening paragraph claimed that Vincent Nelson, a member of the British Bar who is of Jamaican parentage, was in Trinidad to assist in the Petrotrin and Guanapo church investigations.
An expert in financial and fraud crime, Nelson was in fact recruited to lead the Petrotrin probe and is working alongside the for-midable local team that has been put in place in respect of those investigations. Another part of the same story pointed out: "Concerning the Petrotrin probe, he said several people who were under investigation were coming forward with evidence. "He said they may be granted prosecution immunity."
This was not the case and it is the sole discretion of the DPP to make any determination in this regard.
I reproduce the exact statement the Attorney General made in this context: "As part of the investigations I want to tell you that there may be people who were themselves forced or coerced into doing wrong, and may have found themselves unwittingly participating in a larger conspiracy to affect a financial fraud on their employer, or the State and the state agency for which they worked. "By coming forward it may very well be that there are persons in respect of whom the honourable DPP may need to consider whether prosecutorial immunity needs to be granted for appropriate witnesses who are supporting, co-operating and assisting with the probes, cards on the table... face up. "But that, of course, is a matter for the discretion and decision of the DPP of the country." The contents of this article can easily be misinterpreted as an attempted unlawful trespass by the Attorney General on the jurisdiction and territory of the DPP. It is therefore important that this clarification be made so as to preserve the independence of both the Offices of the Attorney General and the DPP.
Clevon Raphael
Political adviser to the AG