The Attorney General is not and cannot in the discharge of his public functions be intimidated by threats.
This is the response of Attorney General Reginald Armour to Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass’ attorneys after a pre-action protocol letter dated April 29, 2024, was sent to his office by Freedom Law Chambers, headed by former AG Anand Ramlogan, SC, on behalf of the Auditor General.
Armour, in his response, said that he will not be threatened, and made it clear that the legal representation Ramdass wants the State to finance is “personal” to her.
Ramdass’ letter stated that the Auditor General was under “political” attack by Armour and Finance Minister Colm Imbert and requested that financing be provided for Ramdass to mount a legal defence.
The AG’s Office responded on April 30, 2024, saying the advice of senior counsel was being sought and Ramdass’ attorney, Aasha Ramlal, of Freedom Law Chambers, replied demanding a reply by noon yesterday, May 1.
Later in the day, on April 30, 2024, at 9.27 p.m., Freedom Law Chambers received another letter from the AG’s Office.
The letter addressed the question of legal representation of the Auditor General. Armour’s office stated in its letter, signed by chambers director S DeSouza, that Ramdass’ request raises the question of the use of public funds and is a matter which requires “full and mature” consideration by the Attorney General.
The letter went on to note that the pre-action letter that Freedom Law Chambers sent on behalf of the Auditor General is a personal matter.
“Your threatened litigation is one that is personal to your client and is not brought about of the inability of the Attorney General to provide her with legal advice with which he is in law authorised to provide her,” stated the letter.
“Furthermore, your client did not seek such representation for your threatened proceedings before you sought same in your letter sent by electronic mail of last night (Tuesday). What is more, your letter threatening litigation indicates, inter alia, that your client sought legal advice on ‘the legal validity of the resolution passed by Parliament’ at a time when in fact the resolution was not yet passed or even voted upon,” it stated.
The letter noted that the pre-action protocol letter to Armour also “threatened” that the exchange of correspondence will be disclosed to the court, but said “the Attorney General is not and cannot in the discharge of his public functions be intimidated by threats”.
The letter stated that Armour’s duty and responsibility is to consider all matters on which he must make a decision fairly and properly and to inform himself of all relevant matters and to make all relevant enquiries before he makes a decision.
The letter noted that attorney Ramlal complained that statements by top Government officials are widely published in the media, but said that Armour “has no control over what the media publishes and given the enshrined constitutional fundamental freedoms of the press and expression which he respects will not even encourage any restriction on the right of the media to publish”.
The letter stated further, “In any event many government officials continue to be the subject of adverse publications and ‘target practice’ in the media.”