Chief Parliamentary Counsel (CPC) Ian MacIntyre’s legal representative Anand Ramlogan has called on new Attorney General Reginald Armour to withdraw the March 16 letter in which his predecessor Faris Al-Rawi sought disciplinary action against MacIntyre, the day Al-Rawi was removed as AG.
This is stated in a letter sent to Armour on March 18 by Jared Jagroo of Ramlogan’s Freedom Chambers—two days after Armour was announced as new AG.
Armour was asked to review and reconsider the matter within 28 days.
Ramlogan’s chambers cited a 20-point argument against Al-Rawi’s actions.
The letter added that since Al-Rawi’s complaint against MacIntyre to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) was dated March 16, 2022, “serious doubt” arose whether Al-Rawi was “competent” to make the complaint as AG since he was relieved of the portfolio that day.
“Al-Rawi was no longer holding the office of Attorney General when this complaint was submitted to the JLSC. As such, it is illegal, null and void and of no legal effect.”
Armour didn’t reply to Guardian Media’s query on the call.
The issue is among others Armour has been faced with after the March 16 Cabinet reshuffle when he was appointed to replace Al-Rawi as AG.
Al-Rawi wrote JLSC chairman Chief Justice Ivor Archie on March 16 following a string of correspondence between him and MacIntyre over February to March. The letter concerned MacIntyre’s alleged failure to comply with Al-Rawi’s instructions as Attorney General.
Al-Rawi requested a probe into his complaint that MacIntyre committed alleged disciplinary offences of “insubordination, breach of his duty to cooperate and breach of his duty to maintain trust and confidence.”
Also requested was consideration of suspension of MacIntyre pending probe.
Al-Rawi’s letter was copied to Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, Director of Personnel Administration Corey Harrison, deputy CPC Ida Eversely and others.
Correspondence shows an impasse developed between former AG Al-Rawi and CPC MacIntyre—the state’s main legal draftsman_ since September 2020, continuing to February 2021.
This involved disagreement on the drafting of bills.
Al-Rawi’s letter cited MacIntyre’s refusal to accept any instructions from him which were not supported by a Cabinet Minute and MacIntyre’s instructions to his department to do the same.
Al-Rawi said MacIntyre “unilaterally developed guidelines which he’s portrayed as policy and which led to his refusal to accept instructions.”
But the letter from Ramlogan’s chambers stated MacIntyre had concerns about Al-Rawi’s conduct and modus operandi because “he was in breach of well-established Westminster system protocols and conventions” where government policy is determined by Cabinet or the Prime Minister—not the AG.
The situation came to a head early this month with both men writing higher authorities recently.
Anand Ramlogan
Al-Rawi gave MacIntyre instructions at the end of February concerning potential amendment to the Interception of Communication Act. These involved special requests from the Strategic Services Agency and Director of Public Prosecutions—but he didn’t get a response and wrote MacIntyre on March 11.
MacIntyre, however, wrote DPA Harrison on March 14 that he was constrained to report the impasse to the JLSC because Al-Rawi strongly disagreed with his division’s position and had threatened to initiate disciplinary action against him for his refusal to draft legislation without Cabinet-approved policy instructions concerning a National Security matter.
MacIntyre felt even if Al-Rawi wanted to “take over” National Security’s role/responsibility to develop policy he should obtain Cabinet’s approval of policy before demanding legislation be drafted.
He said the Legislative Drafting Department’s role is to draft legislation on the basis of Government policy, not develop policy in the form of a Bill and the department’s “burden” would be unbearable if the AG’s Ministry alone drafted legislation for all Ministries/agencies without their policy instructions and Cabinet’s approval.
MacIntyre’s letter stated the issue was “whether” the CPC and other Legislative Drafting Department officers are entitled to require Cabinet-approved policy instructions as the proper authority for the drafting of legislation or “whether the CPC is obliged to draft, or to direct officers to draft, legislation on the basis of oral/other instructions issued by the AG.
He sought audience with the JLSC if Al-Rawi complained to the JLSC and before any decision on suspension/disciplinary action. If Al-Rawi didn’t complain MacIntyre sought JLSC inquiry of the matter.
His letter was copied to Rowley, JLSC chairman Archie, Al-Rawi and others.
Two days later on March 16, the reshuffle date, Al-Rawi sought disciplinary proceedings against McIntyre, giving the JLSC detailed overview of the impasse in an eight-page letter.
He said MacIntyre demonstrated “dereliction of duty” in carrying out instructions for the drafting of critical amendment bills including the Anti-Gang Act, Police Complaints Authority Act, the Interception of Communications (Amendment) Act, Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act, and recently, “critical proposed amendments to the Interception of Communication (IOC) bill.”
Deputy CPC Ida Eversley (who ran the department when MacIntyre was on vacation in 2021) also expressed deep concern to MacIntyre on his (MacIntyre’s) position in a March 11, 2022 letter.
Al-Rawi, citing the final issue, said, “The events giving rise to my complaint culminated in a letter which I wrote (MacIntyre) on 11th March 2022 directing him to indicate by 4:00 pm on March 14, 2022 that he would accept this instruction without an accompanying Cabinet or Prime Ministerial approval and to confirm he’d withdrawn contrary instructions from his staff, failing which I would make a complaint to the Commission.”
Al-Rawi received no response from MacIntyre who instead wrote the DPA for the JLSC’s attention on the issue—but without stating Al-Rawi’s March 11 letter.
Al-Rawi added, “Given the CPC’s refusal to respond to my March 11th 2022 letter, the CPC’s subsequent correspondence to the DPA and continued refusal to adhere to my lawful instructions, to facilitate my legitimate requests and to adhere to expectations reasonably expected of his office, I’m constrained to refer this matter for investigation as it can no longer be tolerated.”
Faris Al-Rawi
Image courtesy Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago
Al-Rawi, noting MacIntyre’s March 14 letter to the JLSC challenged all points.
He added, “My every attempt at a resolution of this matter and to have the CPC’s Department resume the necessary legislative drafting work it is entrusted to do has failed and the department has effectively ground to a halt.”
PM mum on if this caused reshuffle
In the tensions from 2020, sources confirmed Government’s leadership and the PM were kept fully apprised of the difficulty with MacIntyre. Cabinet was also informed of advice from senior counsel at the Ministry of the Attorney General to refer MacIntyre to the JLSC and to seek his suspension pending probe.
In last Wednesday’s Cabinet reshuffle, Rowley didn’t say why the changes were made. He didn’t reply yesterday to queries on whether the issue with MacIntyre caused Al-Rawi’s removal.
Rowley is expected to speak tomorrow in San Fernando and shed light on the reshuffle.
Al-Rawi, who is the PNM’s San Fernando West MP, will be alongside his boss.
The letter from Ramlogan’s chambers to the new AG requested that Armour review the matter to determine whether Al-Rawi’s complaint against MacIntyre was properly made “and if so, whether it is one that you wish to adopt and pursue as the newly appointed Attorney General.”
“Mr Al-Rawi’s decision is amenable to judicial review on the ground that it is not authorised by law, irrational, illegal, in excess of jurisdiction and fundamentally unfair.”
“It is ironic that on the very day Mr Al-Rawi was trying to get Mr MacIntyre suspended he was in fact removed by the Prime Minister as Attorney General. It may well be that this was poetic justice, given Mr Al-Rawi’s vulgar and obscene attempt to hound our client out of office. In the circumstances, we call upon you to withdraw this letter of complaint.”
CPC disagreed with Al-Rawi on THA tie-breaker bill
Included in the letter to Armour was that MacIntyre recorded “strong objection to Al-Rawi’s “attempt to intimidate and bully him into drafting a Bill to resolve the tie in the THA elections.”
It was alleged that no one from the AG’s Secretariat would be preparing a note for the Prime Minister but the Legislative Drafting Department’s position was that it would not draft legislation without Cabinet-approved policy instructions “for the several reasons”.
The letter noted MacIntyre had stated, “While the resolution of the tie in the recent THA Elections is of critical importance, transparency and good governance is equally, if not more, important. It is clear that it will be months before the Elections and Boundaries Commission can establish the new boundaries and fresh elections can be held. In the interim, the existing THA Executive Council remains in place. The requisite legislation is, therefore, not so urgent or complicated that a sufficiently competent member of your Secretariat cannot prepare the requisite Note for the Prime Minister/Note for Cabinet in short order following our proposed meeting with members of Secretariat on Monday or upon the finalisation of the policy recommendations.”
“The Legislative Drafting Department will not, therefore, give way to undue political pressure to draft legislation on this crucial matter without the approval of policy instruction by the Prime Minister/ Cabinet Please, therefore, be assured that the Bill will be drafted immediately upon receipt of the policy as approved by the Prime Minister/ Cabinet.”
The letter added MacIntyre had to respond to an email from the office of the Clerk of the House which criticised a Bill. MacIntyre, replying, said the Bills were prepared and sent to Parliament without his involvement.