Friday 16th January 2015 Ricardo Gladiator Welch Added Express Story By Anna Ramdass and Ria Taitt RAMLOGAN V ROWLEY--THE MOTHER OF ALL LEGAL BATTLES IN DEFAMATION / LIBEL LAWSUIT Attorney General Anand Ramlogan said yesterday a legal victory was scored against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley for what he said was his failure to file a defence in a defamation case against him, involving the allegations made in the emailgate fiasco. Ramlogan, at the post-Cabinet news conference at the Office of the Prime Minister, St Clair, presented legal documents to the media pertaining to judgment against Rowley. It ordered him to pay the AG monies to be determined by the court for defamation. Ramlogan, in October last year, filed a defamation case against Rowley for the allegations he made in the Parliament in 2013. Rowley had presented a series of damning e-mails to the Parliament which, he said, implicated the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and then local government minister Suruj Rambachan and National Security Minister Gary Griffith in criminal acts and a massive cover-up. The alleged cover-up involved a major conspiracy against: 1. the Director of Public Prosecutions 2. a plot to harm and discredit reporter Denyse Renne and 3. the payment of monies in exchange for freedom by an unnamed person. The e-mails coincided with the time when public outrage over the Section 34 scandal had reached its height in October and November 2012. Rowley quoted from e-mail addresses contained in the string of e-mails allegedly belonging to the above officials. Ramlogan said in light of the court’s judgment, the Integrity Commission should investigate Rowley for violating the Integrity in Public Life Act for making false claims. The AG quoted from the high court document, dated January 14, 2015, which is addressed to Rowley, and states, “You have not filed a defence to the claimant’s statement of case and the time for doing so has expired. It is therefore ordered that judgment in default of defence be and is hereby entered against you for payment of an amount of money to be decided by the court together with interests and costs.” The document is signed by the assistant registrar of the Supreme Court, Candice Cielto-Jones. Another document, dated January 15, 2015, states parties are required to attend before Master Alexander at the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain, at 9 a.m. on March 10, for the assessment of damages. Ramlogan said when the case was filed, Rowley’s attorneys requested an extension to file a defence which was due on December 16. He said a new date of January 7, 2015, was given but no defence was filed. “I am certain the population would harbour no doubts that the emailgate fiasco is one that had no basis in fact whatsoever but was a political concoction by someone with a very overactive and creative imagination who hoped for the best because they were trying to salvage a flagging political career,” Ramlogan said. He asked why Rowley would not defend such grave allegations. “We are willing to entertain an apology at this stage of the game. I therefore call upon Dr Rowley to do the manly and honourable and decent thing to apologise to the Prime Minister and myself for making these scandalous allegations,” said Ramlogan. Asked if the apology would mean Rowley would not have to pay him any money, Ramlogan said, “If he apologises, I will be seeking the same amount of money but he should apologise because he damn wrong!” Ramlogan noted when Rowley made the allegations, it was the Prime Minister who immediately requested the Commissioner of Police to investigate the matter, and although Rowley had these alleged e-mails in his possession, he never took them to the police. “The question is whether Dr Rowley himself is guilty of a violation of the Integrity in Public Life Act by making a false complaint and fabricating and concocting a claim that would be the allegation for the Integrity Commission to investigate now,” said Ramlogan. Griffith said he had handed over his mobile phone to the police to assist in their investigations and to prove there was no truth to the allegations. Griffith preferred not to comment when asked if he, too, will be taking legal action against Rowley as Ramlogan did. FARIS AL-RAWIi on emailgate lawsuit: We’re still fighting Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s claim of a victory in the courts against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley in an emailgate-related lawsuit has been dismissed by Faris Al-Rawi, counsel for Rowley. “We do not share the Attorney General’s view that this is any landmark occasion of justice. We certainly don’t share his view that this is a matter which is not being treated with any seriousness. We are prosecuting Dr Rowley’s defence in all of the litigation with great vigour,” Al-Rawi stated. He was responding to statements by the Attorney General that High Court Judge Frank Seepersad had ruled in his favour on statements made arising out of the emailgate allegations by Rowley. The judgment was based on Rowley’s failure to file a defence. But Al-Rawi stated this was no victory for Ramlogan. He said Rowley’s legal team had applied for an extension for filing its defence, and they were still awaiting notification from the court as to the date of the hearing of this application. “We ask the population not to be distracted by the ramblings of the Attorney General, which can be easily dealt with in court,” he said, speaking at a hastily called news conference at the Opposition Leader’s Port of Spain office yesterday. He said as far as he was aware, an application made by the Rowley team for an extension to file defence was still waiting to be heard. “You cannot get a judgment in default of defence in the face of a pending application. Because judicial determination of the issue is still outstanding,” he said. “If, on the other hand, it turns out that the application (for an extension) was heard and determined, we certainly were not aware of it. It is not shown on the court file and we will move to set aside any judgment that is there,” he stated. “That is trite law,” he added. He added he had written to the court seeking clarification. “We have written to Mr Richard Jagai, the judicial support officer to Master Alexander, to enquire whether this is just a case management conference to hear our application because we just don’t know”, he said. Contacted later on and told the Express had court documents showing there was a hearing, a grant of extension to January 7, 2015, Al-Rawi said he was unaware there was a hearing in the matter before Justice Frank Seepersad, at which the Rowley team was given a January 7 deadline to file its defence. Al-Rawi said he was not notified of any hearing or of the grant of an extension to January 7, 2015. He said Rowley’s legal team would move to set aside the judgment based on the grounds it acted with expedition and urgency and on the ground that they had a “very good and arguable defence against this charade of litigation that the Attorney General has brought”. “I find it incredible that an application for default could be made only yesterday and the Attorney General is today talking about a pyrrhic victory,” he said. In response to questions, he said it usually took longer to get a judgment in defence from the Registry. He said the Opposition took the emailgate matter very seriously. He said the persistent litigation against Rowley, speaking in his capacity as Opposition Leader, was designed to silence the voice of the Opposition, in circumstances where money seems to be no obstacle to those who sit in Government who bring the court actions against Rowley.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:55:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015