President of the Law Association Seenath Jairam, SC, has admitted he was approached by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan to handle the matter involving Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley but says he refused to take the case. Jairam also denied he advised Ramlogan either orally or in writing in any of his personal matters, “notwithstanding that there is not anything in the code of ethics which would have prevented me from so doing.”
People’s National Movement PRO Faris Al-Rawi had initially named Jairam as Ramlogan’s attorney after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, during the UNC’s Monday Night Forum, raised the issue of conflict of interest with current Reginald Armour, who is contesting for the post of the law association president in the pending election. The PM said Armour, who is one of Rowley’s lawyers, had made a pronouncement in the matter in which she suggested Al-Rawi had breached the code of ethics and wondered how he would handle this case if it were to come before him.
In response to this, Al-Rawi said the PM should also have let the public know Jairam was representing Ramlogan. But in a one-page statement yesterday, Jairam, who said he was speaking in his capacity as senior counsel and no law association president, said:
“The media has widely reproduced comments made that I, as president of the Law Association, have represented Mr Anand Ramlogan, SC, in his personal capacity. That statement is very erroneous and completely unfounded.” He then explained that while it was true that the former AG did approach him for representation, he declined to accept the case, after careful consideration and consultation with his colleagues.
The statement added: “Sometime in the latter part of the year 2013, Mr Ramlogan, SC, approached me to represent him in a personal matter against Dr Keith Rowley. “My instinctive reaction to him was that I needed to consider the ramification for the Law Association before I decided to accept his brief. I told him that I will consult with my colleagues and revert to him. “I did consult with some senior colleagues, some of who suggested that there was no reason for me to refuse a brief as counsel, while a few others thought that I should not accept the brief.
“In the end, after giving the matter very careful consideration I informed Mr Ramlogan, SC, that I cannot accept the brief because I did not want to embroil the Law Association in any perceived controversy between a member of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition.” He also maintained that at no time did he appear in any court in the matter or any other matter for Ramlogan.''
Al-Rawi responds
Responding to Jairam’s statement yesterday, however, Al-Rawi maintained that Jairam was Ramlogan’s attorney in the matter brought against Rowley, as there were High Court records which showed otherwise. He said Jairam’s name as lead counsel for Ramlogan was filed on Ramlogan’s list of documents at the High Court on September 30, 2013, in the Section 34 defamation case filed by the former AG.
In addition, Al-Rawi said on October 28, 2013, Ramlogan’s instructing attorney Rachael Jaggernauth had announced Jairam as leading the team representing Ramlogan, in place of Avery Sinanan, SC, when the matter was heard before late Justice Guy Hannays. Al-Rawi, however, said he had the utmost respect for Jairam, describing him as an excellent attorney.
“The PM raised the issue of Mr Armour’s candidacy for the president of the Law Association on the political platform and suggested that there was a conflict in his contest for that election on account of his being lead advocate attorney for Dr Rowley. “I addressed this unfortunate reflection by the PM by making note that Mr Jairam was Mr Ramlogan’s attorney and that there should be fair reflection by the PM. “I consider the PM to be out of place in interfering in the election for president of the Law Association,” Al-Rawi added.
He said he was bound to accept Jairam at his word, adding that it was perhaps unfortunate that Ramlogan’s instructing attorney had informed the court and the relevant parties that Jairam was involved in the Section 34 defamation matter. Contacted by phone yesterday, Jairam said his name was probably included in the documents during the time he told Ramlogan he would think about whether or not he should accept the matter.
“It is not something I would not quibble about as these things do happen. They may have included my name in the documents but the fact is I never gave, advise or appeared in court. I never accepted the brief,” Jairam said.