Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has sued former minister Herbert Volney for alleged statements made on internet blogs about the Section 34 fiasco and his firing from the Cabinet.
Ramlogan claimed Volney stated on the blogs that a “series of behind the scene manoeuvres between the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General contrived a case wholly false to get rid of me to take the heat off the Government”.
In his statement of case, attorney for Ramlogan, Richard Arjoon Jagai said the words meant that Ramlogan orchestrated a conspiracy to remove Volney from office by presenting a false case against him; that he suborned and/or incited the Chief Justice and DPP to participate in that conspiracy in the full knowledge that the case against Volney was a fabricated one; that Ramlogan violated the independence of the Judiciary; that Ramlogan is guilty of gross constitutional impropriety in seeking to compromise the office of the Chief Justice; that Ramlogan is dishonest and/or unethical, lacks integrity and is unfit to hold office. Volney’s statement also suggests that Ramlogan acted in breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act and is guilty of misconduct in public office.
Jagai said Ramlogan’s professional reputation had been greatly injured and he had been exposed and/or brought into public scandal, ridicule, odium, contempt and had suffered considerable distress and embarrassment.
The attorney further claims that Volney in publishing the words attributed to him complained of, “was motivated by the desire to rescue and/or rehabilitate his own reputation for having been relieved of his ministerial portfolio for ineptitude in relation to the implementation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 generally and misinforming and/or misrepresenting pertinent facts to the Cabinet in particular, by seeking to impute blame for his said removal to the claimant (Ramlogan) and others”.
Jagai claims Volney as a former judge “well knew the legal and evidential requirements to establish a criminal conspiracy and well knew that his allegations of a criminal conspiracy among three of the highest office holders in the land was legally and evidentially baseless, and that such allegation would greatly damage the good name and position of the claimant and would bring him into public scandal and disrepute”.
The statement of case also claimed that since his dismissal Volney has consistently attacked the Attorney General on blogs and in newspaper interviews made disparaging and defamatory remarks designed to bring him into ridicule, contempt and injure his character.
The Attorney General is claiming damages, an injunction restraining Volney from broadcasting or causing to be broadcast or published similarly defamatory worlds, interest, costs and such further relief as the Court might deem fit. The documents indicate that the damages claimed are likely to exceed $15,000.