Attorneys for Ramdass calls AG’s claims of threat “bizarre” and irrational

Home*Cover Story*News

Attorneys for Ramdass calls AG’s claims of threat “bizarre” and irrational

The attorneys for Auditor General Jaiwantee Ramdass said the AG’s statement that he will not “be intimidated by threats” was “bizarre” and irrational.

In a five-page response issued yesterday, the team at Freedom Chambers said: “The issue of ‘threats’ and ‘intimidation’ might be more appropriate in the context of the Government’s conduct towards the Auditor General, as opposed to this simple statement to confirm that we intend to discharge our professional duties by disclosing pre-action correspondence to the court.”

The letter conceded that Reginald Armour is correct that legal representation for the Auditor General will involve the use of public funds but that the Office of the Auditor General is in fact a public office.

“It is difficult to understand what is meant by your statement that, ‘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.’ “This is a shocking and mind-bogglingly incomprehensible statement. How on earth could the issues that arise in this controversy be ‘personal’ to her when it concerns the performance of the official duties of the Auditor General? We are deeply concerned by this statement because it signals your intention to resile from the written undertaking which you gave by letter dated 19th April, 2024, whereby you expressly agreed to pay for her legal advice and representation,” the letter said.

“Your rationale for agreeing to pay our client’s legal fees was based on the fact that you had already given advice to the Minister of Finance on the matter. This was the correct thing to do. Your reasoning is, however, now complicated by the fact that you subsequently launched a scathing political attack against our client under the cover of Parliamentary privilege in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. You vilified our client, accused her of misconduct and assassinated her integrity, character and reputation using the most derogatory of language. Against this backdrop, your statement that our client’s request for independent legal advice and representation ‘is not brought about by the inability of the Attorney General to provide her with legal advice with which he is in law authorised to provide her’ is unreasonable and absurd.”

The letter also stressed: “No lawyer can advise and represent a client that they have publicly vilified and humiliated in such a manner on the very issues that arise in their case. The fact that you seek to do so notwithstanding these facts, is nothing short of bizarre.”