A VALID CHARGE ... OR A MASSIVE DISTRACTION

Okay. At this early stage of proceedings there are very few of us who will have any idea as to what exactly is going on in the Ramlogan/Ramdeen matter and whether or not there really is something for all of us to be concerned about. After all, where there is smoke there is fire ... or a smoke making machine! And there's my problem. Well, we'll all find out soon enough, I guess, but there are some rather troubling aspects of this whole affair which have caused me to raise my eyebrows in wonder.


The first thing that I have noticed is that Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan have only been charged with conspiracy to commit a crime ... and not with having committed the actual crime which they are alleged to have conspired to commit. Why? Conspiracy is one of the most difficult crimes to prove and usually charges under this head of criminal law are brought in conjunction with the actual crime which the perpetrators have allegedly conspired to commit. But that isn't the case here! Why? Did any money pass? If so, then why isn't that part of the case as well?


Then there is the curious case of the Jamaican-born English QC pleading guilty under a plea agreement which we haven't seen ... at least not yet. Okay. The reports say that the plea agreement will be presented in the High Court next week so it is a fair argument to say that it cannot be published until the presiding Judge sees it. (Although I would be prepared to argue otherwise ... but that is another argument and not relevant to this post.) In other words, is the learned gentleman going to be allowed to keep his money which apparently he is saying was part of a conspiracy? Or is it that he is saying that no money passed but he is guilty of conspiring with Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan and perhaps others to make money pass?


You see, as I understand the law, (and I will happily admit that my understanding may be incomplete) the recent Explain Your Wealth Act and other relevant legislation effectively means that if I receive, say, $100 under circumstances which involve the commission of a crime (such as conspiracy) and I conspire with you (who are organizing/approving the payment for me) to give you, say, $50 out of the $100 then the entire $100 becomes forfeit to the State if I am proven guilty and I have to pay the whole $100 back.


So my question is: is this guy, Nelson Vincent QC, going to have to pay back any or all of the millions that he is reported to have received? And if not, why not? And if so, how much and when will he pay it back under the plea agreement? Immediately? Or has he done so already? If he has paid it back, when did he do so?


No. There is something not quite right with this whole story. Exactly what is not right I can't say, but it is clear that we are not getting the whole story. If we do get the whole story at some time in the future, then there you go! All is well. But why can't we be given the whole story now? Something is just not right and there are too many "whys" arising which need to be explained. It isn't that they can't be explained, but that they are not being explained.


Of course, the possibility exists that all this could just be a massive distraction and elections are going to be called fairly soon.  Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy when thoughts like this can even arise and leave you wondering?