I have read the comments of Keith Rowley and others who suggest that David West is an independent witness in the defamation case filed by former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan against PNM political leader Keith Rowley. They give the example of an innocent bystander witnessing an accident giving evidence and in that vein they urge that we do not colour Mr West red with a political brush. In my view this is a deceptive example and conclusion.
Mr West is no ordinary witness. He was employed as a consultant for the Central Authority in the Ministry of the Attorney General during the PNM's tenure and his consultancy services were terminated by Ramlogan. I am told that Mr Al-Rawi has confirmed that he assisted in drafting Mr West's witness statement. Mr Al-Rawi is not simply Rowley's lawyer, he is also the Public Relations Officer for the Rowley-led PNM, an opposition Senator, and a front-line senior member of that party.
The case in question is a civil case for defamation and Mr West was under no compulsion to get involved. Having decided to give evidence for Rowley, however, he has adopted a procedure that I find highly suspicious and which in my view compromised his independence.
Mr West, a former prosecutor, instead of asking Al-Rawi to assist him with his witness statement, had other options as an independent witness, including drafting the witness statement himself, he being a lawyer and former prosecutor. Or declining Al-Rawi's offer and instead going to an independent lawyer of his own choosing to have that person draft his witness statement or attend upon the police and dictate it to the officer taking the report or other officer assigned to take a statement as is normally the case.
West, Al-Rawi and Rowley coming together against Ramlogan leaves a bitter taste and carries a pungent political odour. To illustrate the point, let us flip the script. Imagine that Prakash Ramadhar is representing Anand Ramlogan and is also a witness for him. West goes to Ramadhar who drafts his witness statement which is to be used against Rowley. The cry of the PNM would be a "political conspiracy" whereby they "ganged up" on poor Keith.
Wrongly was it said in T&T, when the shoe is on the other foot, we will see how it feels.It seems as though there is one law for the PNM and another law for the rest of us.
Wayne Sturge,
Attorney-at-law